MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305723586 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n4p271

Impact of Motivation on Productivity of Craftsmen in Construction Firms in Lagos, Nigeria

2016· article· en· W2305723586 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Afuye Funso, Letema Sammy, Munala Gerryshom

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityIncentiveOvertimeWork (physics)BusinessMarketingOperations managementEconomicsEngineeringLabour economicsEconomic growthMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivation has been identified as a useful tool for enhancing productivity. This study aims at determining the impact of motivation on productivity of craftsmen in construction firms in Lagos, Nigeria. Sixteen motivating factors were identified through literature review common to Nigeria construction climate which were used to design questionnaire for the study. A total of 295 questionnaires were administered with 150 filled and returned. This constitute response rate of 50.85%. Productivity rating was done by work study. The mean of motivating factors was correlated with percentage productive hour observed in the sixteen sites surveyed. The outcome indicates that there is positive linear relationship between motivation and productivity. Therefore, motivation influences craftsmen performance in Nigeria construction industry. Further analysis also shows that craftsmen are basically motivated by financial incentives. The paper recommends that financial incentive should be considered for craftsmen in the industry. Moreover, alternative method to working overtime should be employed. The paper concluded that motivation strategy that will enhance productivity should be adopted for workers in the industry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicManagement and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207