Halifax Community Bank: a learning society within a UK organisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Students investigated whether the commonly accepted net promoter score was an accurate way of measuring the quality of service, whether presenteeism was just as corrosive as absenteeism and what internal and external factors contributed to business success or failure. What the paper tried to foster from the outset was the concept of a learning society in order to gauge how students experienced the need to reinforce their arguments with theory. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The author's interest focused on the link between business and academia, what constituted an academic presence in the workplace and whether or not this academic input helped students to become more effective members of their organisation. The author surveyed 30 students for this qualitative study. Findings – Students welcomed clear direction and an opportunity to translate their experience into a problem-solving exercise. They realised they were in the business of developing themselves and strove to bring clarity to their life and work and to demystify their own texts. Research limitations/implications – This is not a longitudinal study but a sample of questionnaire responses from 30 out of a possible 150 students. The “measurement” is broad, rather than precise. Originality/value – By engaging in a partnership with Middlesex University, the Halifax Community Bank appeared to want to effect radical change in its organisational culture. To the students this was no vacuous public relations exercise but a commitment to getting staff/students to re-examine the contingencies of contemporary business and come up with solutions to a range of business problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".