MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856992845 · doi:10.1300/j366v04n03_03

Trust, Satisfaction and Loyalty in Customer Relationship Management

2006· article· en· W1856992845 on OpenAlex
Lyle Wetsch

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Relationship Marketing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessLoyalty business modelImplementationLoyaltyMarketingCustomer relationship managementCustomer retentionCustomer satisfactionCustomer advocacyCompetitive advantageKnowledge managementComputer scienceService qualityService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY In an attempt to increase customer loyalty amid increasingly competitive business environments, organizations are looking to customer relationship management (CRM) to help provide a solution. In spite of CRM failure rates cited as being as high as 70%, organizations continue to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on CRM implementations. Attempts of past research to resolve why failure rates are so high have tended to focus on technological factors such as database integration or factors internal to the organization such as system adoption or organizational culture. While these areas are important, reactions of customers may also play a role. This paper uses justice theory to investigate the potential impact that customer involvement in a CRM implementation may have on customer loyalty. Propositions are provided to guide future 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.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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