Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affecting factors on communication professors and students to improve the educational process is very important.To identify these factors, the study of factors affecting communication between students and professors from the perspective of university students were secret.This study is a cross -sectional.The study population included all undergraduate students of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Education University of Kermanshah.According to their field of study stratified random sample of 162 persons were selected.To collect data, the questionnaire consisted of two parts: demographic information and 23 items about effective factors in establishing communication between students and professors with a four point ordinal scale (very effective, effective, effective and ineffective) and to were presented respectively by scoring four to one.Using 19-SPSS statistical software using descriptive statistics and comparison groups conducted with chi-square test.Results showed that teacher characteristics which reflect his teaching skills as well as some personal and behavioral characteristics that indicate the relationship human communication from the perspective of students are effective.Offers educational workshops to improve this relationship are recommended findings.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.998 | 0.998 |
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 it