Factors affecting financial management: Case study of educational manager training and fostering public institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research focuses deeply on and evaluates the factors affecting financial management of educational managers training and fostering institutions in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. This is a very specific model for countries in transition economies as in Vietnam, a country is in the process of comprehensive renovation, restructuring public service delivery institutions, increasing the assignment of self-responsibility to institutions, reducing financial pressure on the State budget. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods together with techniques, i.e., testing reliability scales with Cronbach's alpha coefficients, exploratory factor analysis EFA, CFA and linear model SEM, the study investigated 500 samples in 07 educational institutions in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The findings revealed six (06) factors, which are internal control system, technology infrastructure, top managers’ commitment, cash management and budget system, organizational responsibility, affected the financial reporting system, and meanwhile, the financial reporting system has a positive impact on the financial management. Based on this result, the study has proposed implications for improving financial management in educational managers training and fostering institutions in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".