MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998185727 · doi:10.1177/1094670505279340

Reassessing the Foundations of Customer Delight

2005· article· en· W1998185727 on OpenAlex

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 Service Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTicketMarketingCustomer satisfactionAdvertisingCustomer delightEntertainmentBusinessCustomer retentionValue (mathematics)Theme (computing)Sample (material)Customer valueSociologyService qualityService (business)EconomicsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1990s saw a questioning of the value of merely satisfying customers and instead focused attention on the importance of customer delight. In a key contribution, Oliver, Rust, and Varki (1997) developed a structural model of the antecedents and consequences of customer delight, acting in parallel with satisfaction, that was generally supported for two entertainment services. However, the effect of delight on intention was significant for symphony ticket purchasers but not for theme park patrons. This article first replicates their path analysis for more mundane visits to consumer Web sites. Then it takes advantage of a larger sample and additional measures to address construct measurement issues and to determine whether customer delight is something more than a nonlinear effect of satisfaction on intention.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.260 · 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