MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161418543 · doi:10.5539/ass.v7n3p210

Motives for Training and Management Development in the Nigerian Banking Industry

2011· article· en· W2161418543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratified samplingDescriptive statisticsTraining and developmentPopulationBusinessVariance (accounting)Training (meteorology)ProductivityMarketingDutyBanking industryOperations managementStatisticsAccountingEconomicsManagementEconomic growthGeographySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on the motives for training and management development using the Nigerian Banking Industry as a case study .The study relied on both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data. The entire staff of the 25 commercial banks as at 2007 in Nigeria is the population of the study and the difficulty in studying the whole population makes sampling inevitable. In the selection of the banks for this study, stratified sampling technique was adopted. All the 25 banks as at 2007 were stratified into two, old and new Generation Banks. Consequently 4 banks were selected from each stratum. A total of 320 questionnaires were administered. 281 out of the 320 questionnaires were however returned and found suitable for analysis. The data obtained through questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics such as frequency distribution and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), respectively. The results of the analysis showed that banks see training and management development as important factors, as well having motives for investing in Training and management development. These motives include- new technology; productivity; responding to skills deficiencies; moral duty; new hire request; and staff request. Some of the recommendations based on the findings include- training should be seen as one of the most important strategies for organizations to help employees gain proper knowledge and skills needed to meet the environmental challenges; it must also be noted that, training and development, though primarily concerned with people, is also concerned with technology, the precise way an organization does business.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.195 · 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