MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573485383 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n2p111

Impact of Electronic Banking Services on Bank Transactions

2017· article· en· W2573485383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Najah Hassan Salamah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic bankingBusinessDatabase transactionFinancial servicesRetail bankingSample (material)Telephone bankingFinancial transactionWork (physics)Bank statementMarketingAccountingFinanceThe InternetComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the research was to evaluate the significance of electronic system integrated in the banking sector for providing convenience services to their clients and the overall impact caused by electronic services on bank transaction. The research has applied analytical descriptive methodology to analyze the impact of electronic banking services on the bank transactions. The total sample size taken for the study was 150 and the questionnaires were distributed among the clients and bank officials to collect the data. The analysis revealed that electronic services have contributed to increase both the financial activity of the bank as well as number of its clients. In the banking sector, professional training can be given to banking officials, so that they can effectively work on the electronic system. The satisfaction has covertly impact a customer inclination towards electronic banking and electronic banking has positively influenced the banking transaction.

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)0.016
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207