A framework for evaluating the performance of automated teller machine in banking industries: A queuing model-cum-TOPSIS approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The improvement in the provision of banking services to customers enhances bank's performance (profitability and productivity) and the amounts of dividend declared to shareholders as well as bank's competitiveness. One means of fast tracking the service time for bank customers is through the use of self-servicing machines, such as automated teller machine (ATM). Total service cost, expected waiting time in queue, ATM utilization and percentage of customer loss are some of the performance indices that are used to evaluate the service rendered by a bank's ATM. This study proposes a framework for evaluating the performance of ATM by integrating queuing model and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methodology. Applicability of the framework was tested using practical data obtained from four banks in Nigeria. It was observed that the average ATM usage in the study area was less than 50%. The TOPSIS results identified Bank A as the best ranked bank. In addition, the results obtained revealed that banks with two ATM were ranked higher than banks with more than two ATM.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".