Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this paper is to present and discuss the development of a transaction‐based model for segmenting users of internet banking. It aims to employ a random sample of clients of a large Canadian bank in generating the hybrid segments. Design/methodology/approach The basic transactional profile of the bank's clients was merged with Mosaic's financial segments contained in the Generation5 database. A random sample of 3 percent of a large Canadian chartered bank's clients was drawn from its transaction database. The transaction database employed contains clients from Quebec and the Maritime provinces. The sampling frame consisted of close to one million clients. Two‐step cluster analysis was employed to generate the transaction segment and later merged with the Mosaic financial segment to produce hybrid segments. Findings Two‐step cluster analysis identified four generic transaction segments which, when cross‐tabulated with the Mosaic financial segments, produced highly stable and interpretable segments. These hybrid segments are clearly superior to conventional life style or psychographic segments produced by classical segmentation methodologies. Practical implications The results of this study clearly demonstrate the functional and analytical superiority of hybrid customer segments. Hybrid segmentation, by cross‐tabulating transaction and Mosaic's financial segments, provides banks and financial institutions with superior strategic insights in customer understanding, customer segmentation, customer communication, customer prospecting and targeting. Originality/value This paper is the first to present, explain and to demonstrate the nature and the operational procedure to develop hybrid customer/client segments. More importantly, it is the first that goes beyond conventional approaches to segmenting banks' clients who engage in internet banking by integrating clients' transaction profiles and Mosaic financial segments. The resulting hybrid segments are radically different than the conventional, one‐dimensional segments produced by conventional cluster‐based segmentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".