MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590860456 · doi:10.1002/kpm.1399

Knowledge Management Practices in the Nigerian Telecommunications Industry

2013· article· en· W1590860456 on OpenAlexaff
Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj, Isola Ajiferuke

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge and Process Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)BusinessIntellectual capitalWork (physics)TelecommunicationsCompetitive advantageMarketingStratified samplingComputer scienceFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of the study was to examine how Nigerian telecommunications organizations leverage knowledge in achieving organizational performance and competitive advantage. Forty organizations were selected by using stratified random sampling from the 150 organizations in the Nigerian telecommunications industry. Twenty‐nine of the selected organizations agreed to participate in the study, and questionnaires were then distributed to 14 senior executives in each of these organizations. Four hundred and six questionnaires were returned, but only 329 complete ones were used for analysis. The results from the study showed the following: that there is poor management of human capital in the Nigerian telecommunications industry; that lack of effective communication appears to be the bane of structural capital management in the industry; that most of the telecommunications companies in Nigeria have had a long‐term relationship with their customers; and that Nigerian telecommunications organizations are familiar with knowledge management as a concept. The results also showed slight differences among the six groups of organizations in their management of intellectual capital with the Local Exchange operators and National Carrier as the best and worst performers, respectively. In conclusion, it is suggested that Nigerian telecommunications organizations should strive to provide a conducive and an enabling working environment, where people can share ideas about work without being shut down by bosses and bureaucrats, and that they should try harder to implement their customers' suggestions, especially when such suggestions have to do with meeting the customers' needs. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge and Process ManagementSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207