MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544654722 · doi:10.18438/b86g73

Improving Customer Satisfaction: Changes as a Result of Customer Value Discovery

2008· article· en· W1544654722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan McKnight, Mike Berrington

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer satisfactionCustomer advocacyCustomer retentionMarketingVoice of the customerCustomer valueValue (mathematics)BusinessCustomer intelligenceBalanced scorecardPsychological interventionKnowledge managementService qualityComputer scienceService (business)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify how interventions, as a result of Customer Value Discovery research, increased student satisfaction in an academic library. The process created a positive environment for ongoing innovation amongst staff to deliver added value to customers. Methods: “Customer Discovery Workshops” were undertaken with academic staff and undergraduate on-campus students to provide managers and library staff with information on what services and resources were of value to customers, and what irritated them about existing services and resources. The impact of interventions was assessed two years after the research by using a university student satisfaction survey and an independent national student satisfaction survey. Results: The findings resulted in significant changes to the way forward-facing customer services were delivered. A number of value adding services were introduced for the customer. Overall customer satisfaction was improved. Conclusions: The customer value discovery research has created a culture of innovation and continuous improvement. The Balanced Scorecard framework was introduced to help track activity and performance against the objectives identified in the customer value research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207