MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791206274 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n4p142

The Impact of Motivations on Employees Performance: Case Study from Palestinian Commercial Banks

2018· article· en· W2791206274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Т. Abusharbeh, Hanan Hasan Nazzal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Behavior and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveOrder (exchange)BusinessWork (physics)MarketingPsychologyFinanceEconomicsMicroeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivation aims to empower and liberalize people as enhance their entrepreneurial abilities to recognize the interactions between humans and their abilities to work. Thus, this paper is aimed to examine the impact of motivations on employee’s performance in Palestinian banking industry. The survey data was collected through distributing a questionnaire on employees that working in Palestinian commercial banks. Relied on Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis, this paper reveals that moral motives are significantly and positively predicted employees performance. Moreover, the scholars find a high level of motivations provided to employees that working in Palestinian commercial banks. However, the material and social incentives are not predicted employees performance. On other side, the paper found that there are differences between the levels of motivation when it comes to the demographic data like qualifications, years of experiences, and job title. Finally, the study recommended that Palestinian banks needs to adapt and develop their motivation system in order to satisfy all employees’ moral needs.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicHuman Behavior and MotivationFrench-language works237,207