MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387393512 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v12n6p11

Development of Administrative Model for High-Performance Organization of Primary Educational Service Area Office Chankrit Namchaidee, Chaiyuth Sirisuthi & Pha Agsonsua1

2023· article· en· W4387393512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chankrit Namchaidee, Chaiyuth Sirisuthi, Pha Agsonsua

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Leadership and Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the Higher Education CommissionChulalongkorn University
KeywordsStakeholderService (business)BusinessProcess managementKnowledge managementOrganizational structureProductivityResource (disambiguation)Work (physics)Operations managementEngineering managementComputer scienceMarketingPublic relationsManagementEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this R&D research was to create an administrative model for developing a primary education office area toward a high-performance organization by assessing the current situation and desirable conditions of primary education service area offices and identifying the need for developing the management model. A management model was then created and developed; and finally, its implementation was evaluated, with recommendations for improvement. The model, a result of mixed-methods research, comprised eight components that could help primary education service area offices become high-performance organizations, with respective priorities as follows: 1) leadership, 2) strategic planning, 3) organization structure and work processes, 4) human resource management for high potential, 5) data and information technology management, 6) stakeholder orientation, 7) learning organization, and 8) productivity and outcome-based orientation. The current situation of office administration in primary education areas was at a high level, while the desirable condition overall was at the highest level. The developed model was assessed and affirmed by experts as feasible, appropriate, and useful at a high level. When considering the utility of the management model after the implementation, the overall level was also high, and satisfaction with the implementation was also very high. The model can be applied in other office areas depending on their unique conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicOrganizational Leadership and Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207