Human resource practices and performance in microfinance organizations: Do intellectual capital components matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the influence of human resource practices (HRPs) on both the financial and social performance of monetary financial institutions (MFIs), assessing the role of intellectual capital (IC). Data were collected from 252 MFIs in India, and structural equation modelling was used to analyse causal relationships. The proposed model finds a positive relationship between HRPs and human, structural, and relational capital, and all facets of IC were positively associated with financial and social performance. Intellectual capital fully mediated the relationship between HRPs and financial performance but only partially mediated the relationship with social performance. Accounting for IC components, the indirect relationship between HRPs and financial performance was stronger than the indirect relationship between HRPs and social performance. Results indicate that HRPs can better explain the performance of MFIs through human, relational, and structural capital accumulation. They were congruent with a resource‐based view of HRM and human capital theory.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it