MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410322684 · doi:10.52783/jisem.v10i4.8744

Training Needs Analysis and Course Design for Financial and Tax Management: Evidence from Chinese SME Owners in Thailand

2025· article· en· W4410322684 on OpenAlexaff
Zhouyi Zhai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Systems Engineering & Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicIndian Economic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsAssumption University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)BusinessTraining (meteorology)Short courseAccountingFinanceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the training needs for financial and tax management among Chinese small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners operating in Thailand. Through a mixed-methods approach combining questionnaire surveys from 40 Chinese SME entrepreneurs and semi-structured interviews with 10 selected participants, the research identifies critical areas requiring training support. The findings show that bank credit knowledge ranks as the highest training need (mean score 4.52), followed by financial management (4.14), VAT declaration and management (3.54), and corporate income tax (3.50). The study highlights specific challenges faced by Chinese SME owners in Thailand, including language and cultural barriers in bank communications, difficulties in accessing financing, and limitations of financial outsourcing services. Based on these findings, a comprehensive training program was designed, comprising three core modules: bank credit practice, financial management, and tax management practice. This research contributes to understanding the unique financial and tax management training needs of foreign SME owners operating in Thailand and provides practical implications for developing targeted training programs to enhance their business competencies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information Systems Engineering & ManagementSame topicIndian Economic and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207