Bankers' Communication Know-how: An Analysis from Commercial Banks of Kathmandu valley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the modern era, communication has changed the way of working styles, banking sectors are practicing banking communication in order to make work easier, faster, comfortable and accurate. Banking communication plays the role of mediator in between bank, customer, government, shareholder, suppliers, client, board of directors and employees which strengthen connection between them. Therefore, banker's experience on banking communication enhances banking system, employee's behavior and core banking service facilities management. Objective: This study analyses socio demographic, financial service management, human resource management, corporate influence, organizational regulator, communication culture, responsiveness, organizational culture, e-banking service facilities, organizational functioning and communication encounters. Methodology: This study is based on exploratory research design showing causal relationship between latent and observed variables. The research prepares systematic questionnaire to interview respondents where 355 employees are interviewed by using purposive sampling technique. The result is based on descriptive analysis and Awareness Index. Results: The Employees Awareness Index depicts 12% of employees are inadequately aware about banking communication followed by 46% of employees are moderately aware and 37% of employees are adequately aware about banking communication. Conclusion: This study revealed that, in order to improve banking system, the bank should focus on financial service management and organizational regulator. For smooth control on employee's behavior bank should concentrate on communication culture, responsiveness and organizational culture. Similarly, core banking service facilities management should overview on e-banking service facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".