Alternative measures of service quality: a review
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.916
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss the key conceptual and empirical issues that should be considered in the development of alternative industry‐specific measurement scales of service quality (other than SERVQUAL). Design/methodology/approach A total of 30 studies are selected from two well‐known databases: Science direct and ABI inform. These studies are subjected to a comprehensive in‐depth content analysis and theoretical discussion of the key conceptual and empirical issues to be considered in the development of service‐quality measurement instruments. Findings The study identifies deficiencies in some of the alternative service‐quality measures; however, the identified deficiencies do not invalidate the essential usefulness of the scales. The study makes constructive suggestions for the development of future scales. Originality/value This is the first work to describe and contrast a large number of service‐quality measurement models, other than the well‐known SERVQUAL instrument. The findings are of value to academics and practitioners alike.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Managing Service Quality
- Topic
- Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- Université de Moncton
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- SERVQUALService qualityQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Empirical researchProcess managementOriginalityConstructiveComputer scienceKnowledge managementManagement scienceMarketingBusinessEngineeringSociologyQualitative researchProcess (computing)Mathematics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes