Exploring the Relationship between Social Environment and Customer Experience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of “experience” as another forms of business offerings (Pine and Gilmore, 1999) and the failure of implementing customer relationship management to create the expected levels of value for customers and profitability for organizations (Palmer, 2010; Barnes, 2002) have prompted the practitioners and academic scholars to explore the successor of customer relationship management, which is known as customer experience. Pine and Gilmore (1999) asserted that companies need to create memorable experiences to each customer for the purpose of generating greater economic value in the experience-based economy, instead of simply making goods and delivering services to the customers (Kim, Cha, Knutson and Beck, 2011). For the purpose of creating differentiated and memorable customer experience, this research paper would like to evaluate the direct and indirect relationship between social environment and customer experience (including sensory experience, emotional experience and social experience). A total of 330 respondents participate in this research. The findings revealed thatsocial environment is related to the sensory experience and emotional experience respectively.Furthermore, the research findings also concluded the interactive relationships between the dimensions of the customer experience: (1) the sensory experience is positively related to the emotional experience; (2) the emotional experience is positively related to the social experience; and (3) the sensory experience is positively related to the social experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it