A Study of Components and Indicators of Being Quality Organization of Phrapariyattidhamma School, General Education Department, in the Northeast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to 1) study the components and indicators of being quality organization of Phrapariyattidhamma School, General Education Department, in the Northeast, and 2) evaluate the suitability of the components and indicators of being quality organization of Phrapariyattidhamma School, General Education Department, in the Northeast. The phases were divided into 2 phases: 1) studying documents and related works on the components of being quality organization and synthesize received data of components of being quality organization with 7 experts, and 2) evaluating the suitability of components and indicators of being quality organization employing suitability test verified by the experts on question details. The data analysis was by computer program using Rating Scale, Average, and Standard Deviation. The findings of the study were found that the components and indicators of being quality organization Phrapariyattidhamma School, General Education Department, in the Northeast contained 5 components and 43 indicators: 1) 9 indicators of quality learners, 2) 8 indicators of professional teachers, 3) 9 indicators of high-performance school, 4) 5 indicators of strategic management, 5) 8 indicators of community cooperation and the results of the overall evaluation of the components and indicators were at a higher level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".