Evaluation of the Service Quality in the Archival Centers of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the quality of archival services in archival centers in Iran. \nMethods: The present study was conducted with a descriptive approach and a comparative causal method. The statistical population of this research was the employees of Iran's archival centers, a sample of 120 people was selected from among them, and the instrument used was a questionnaire. The statistical test used is one-sample T-test, ANOVA test and Friedman test. \nResults: According to the answers to the research questions related to each of the archival centers of Iran and in general regarding the quality of archival services, there is a significant difference between the obtained weighted average and the experimental average (5) at the significance level of 0.05. The t value and the degrees of freedom related to each of Iran's archival centers indicate that this difference is significant at the 0.05 level. In fact, the service quality of Iran's archival centers is higher than the desired level. The results of Tukey's post hoc test indicate that this difference is evident between the archival centers of Iran and the Astan Quds document center. Finally, according to the ranking obtained through the Friedman test in terms of prioritizing the quality of archival services in the studied archival centers, it can be stated as follows: 1. Astan Quds Document Center; 2. National Archives of Iran; 3. Center for documents of the Islamic Council; 4. Department of Documents and Diplomacy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; 5. Contemporary History Studies Institute; and 6. Islamic Revolution Documentation Center. \nConclusion: The results indicate that the status of service quality of archival centers is higher than the desired level. Also, there is a significant difference between the archival centers of Iran in terms of the quality of archival services, which is evident between the archival centers of Iran and the Astan Quds Document Center. This research is the first research in the field of measuring and evaluating the quality of archival services that has been carried out in the archival centers of Iran.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".