MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025536870 · doi:10.5539/ass.v4n11p87

From Customer Satisfaction to Citizen Satisfaction: Rethinking Local Government Service Delivery in Malaysia

2009· article· en· W2025536870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hazman Shah Abdullah, Maniam Kalianan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal governmentCustomer satisfactionService qualityService delivery frameworkBusinessGovernment (linguistics)MarketingPoliticsScope (computer science)Quality (philosophy)Service (business)Public relationsPublic administrationPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Producer-Customer Paradigm within which much of the service improvement efforts have been undertaken is a highly circumscribed and problematic paradigm for local government services. It views citizens as customers of local government services and seeks to be more efficient in its delivery through process improvements. While the Producer-Customer Paradigm has spotlighted the service delivery side of the local government, it leaves the policy making and political side of local government, so central to the nature and role of government largely beyond its scope. This artificial but politically convenient truncation or limitation has been soundly criticized in the west for distorting the role of the local citizen and the local government. Citizen satisfaction and not merely customer satisfaction is the key indicator of local government quality. An expanded service quality paradigm i.e. Government-Citizen Model is needed to place service quality within a framework of political and social values. The ultimate test of local government quality is a population which is satisfied as a user (personal satisfaction) and citizen (social satisfaction).

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207