Customer feedback management: Developing an organizational process of information use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This best‐practice poster presents an organization process for making efficient use of customer feedback comments. This process was developed to address a need of the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) in feedback management. The challenge lies with identifying issues related to feedback (information) use and developing a technological solution to address the issues. As a result of this project, the CPhA can better cope with volumes of feedback comments. This poster reports on the methodology, outcome and experience from a collaborative project between the CPhA and McGill University in Canada, and contributes to the topic of information use in two ways. From the practitioner's perspective, our experience is valuable for undertaking similar initiatives of process innovation in organizational settings. From the researcher's perspective, this study contributes to scientific knowledge by (1) demonstrating the applicability of Saracevic and Kantor's () Acquisition‐Cognition‐ Application model to study information use at the organizational level, as opposed to information use by individuals, as well as (2) identifying three factors uniquely related to information use at that level.
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 | 0.068 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".