MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140549382 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v4n5p15

The Influence of Size on Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness in the Nigerian Banking Industry

2013· article· en· W2140549382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edwinah Amah, Christine Adaobi Nwuche

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Management and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationOrganizational cultureBusinessBanking industryFlexibility (engineering)MarketingTest (biology)Organizational performancePopulationAccountingManagementEconomicsFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examined the effect of size on corporate culture and organizational effectiveness in the Nigerian banking industry. A total of 388 managers were randomly drawn from a population of 13,339 managers of all the 24 banks in Nigeria. The instruments used for data collection were questionnaire and oral interview. A total of 320 copies of the questionnaire were retrieved and analyzed. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Statistical tool was used to test the hypotheses. The findings revealed that size is significantly related to corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Based on the findings we concluded that size have significant effect on corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. The study therefore recommends that Organizations should have a “big company/small company hybrid” that combines a large corporation’s resources and reach with a small company’s simplicity and flexibility. Size should be managed effectively to empower workers and improve the competitiveness of organizations.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicOrganizational Management and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207