Promotion-Focused Inclinations and University Academic Staff Patronage of Deposit Money Banks in Rivers State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between Promotion-focused inclinations and University academic staff patronage of Deposit Money Banks in Rivers State. Drawing on the Self-Regulatory Focus Theory, the paper argues that Promotion-focused inclinations can influence customer patronage of these banks’ products. Primary data collected with structured questionnaire from seven hundred and ninety-two (792) academic staff of three Universities in Rivers State, were analyzed using the Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient, as obtained in SPSS version 20.0. The study found a significant and positive relationship between Promotion-focused orientations of the University academic staff and their patronage of the Deposit Money Bank. The paper, therefore, recommends that Deposit Money Banks in Rivers State soliciting for patronage from these University Academic Staff should offer bank products that are in tandem with promotion orientations of their value customers. Keywords: Accomplishment Inclination, Advancement Inclination, Customer Patronage, Personal Development Inclination, Promotion-focused inclinations, Self-Regulatory focus.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".