MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411895501 · doi:10.5539/jel.v14n5p385

A Sustainable Development Model for Promoting a Happy Workplace in Autonomous Universities in Thailand

2025· article· en· W4411895501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nawaporn Ampawa, Boonwadee Montrikul Na Ayudhaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentPsychologyHigher educationMathematics educationPedagogySociologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work environment significantly impacts employee performance, job satisfaction, and organizational growth. Poor working conditions can lead to stress and negatively affect physical and mental health. This study aims to explore approaches and theories for fostering a happy organization by applying Kolb’s experiential learning theory, which includes four stages: (1) Concrete Experience – learning by doing, (2) Reflective Observation – observing and reflecting on experiences, (3) Abstract Conceptualization – forming ideas from gathered information, and (4) Active Experimentation – testing and refining concepts. These stages were adapted to the context of Thai public universities, resulting in the DICE-K model with five steps: (1) Direct Experience – learning through hands-on activities, (2) Integrated Reflection – linking current actions with prior knowledge, (3) Conceptualization – generating new ideas, (4) Execution – applying concepts in practice, and (5) Knowledge Management – sharing and sustaining knowledge. The model emphasizes collaborative learning, creativity, and sustainable knowledge management. Key activities, such as the Share & Show “KM Day” platform, inspire and promote good practices. The findings indicate that the DICE-K model is effective for fostering a happy organization in universities and holds the potential for adaptation in other institutions in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207