MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929220506 · doi:10.47670/wuwijar201821mnha

The influence of training courses, customer relationship, and human resource management on customer focus among construction companies

2018· article· en· W6929220506 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer relationship managementCustomer intelligenceEnterprise relationship managementHuman resource managementCustomer advocacyFocus (optics)Human resourcesVoice of the customer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflecting upon language allows teachers, not only to have a greater insight on how English, the language they This study focuses on the influence of training courses, customer relationship and human resource management on customer focus among construction companies. This is due to the lack of information on its effectiveness. These problems may explain why the main players are less responsive to the implementation and practice of a mediating effect of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Human Resource management (HRM) on the relationship between Training Courses (TC) and Customer Focus (CF). It is essential that an appropriate model of CRM and HRM be used by administrators and professionals. The proposed model is based on the dependent variable, CF, and the independent variables, TC and mediator (CRM, HRM). This research is a descriptive-survey and inferential type based on the data collection method where parametric tests were used with the help of SPSS. The results of this research can be used in decision making, policy making, and also planning. In conclusion, it can be inferred that the relationship between CRM and HRM is still at its infancy stage, and as such, serious attention is needed among the players in the development of construction companies.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207