MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029655155 · doi:10.1108/08858620010316831

Customer‐perceived value in industrial contexts

2000· article· en· W2029655155 on OpenAlexaff
Jozée Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Industrial Marketing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingValue (mathematics)Value propositionEntertainmentUse valueEmpirical researchBusiness valueService (business)Customer retentionCustomer valueCustomer advocacyService qualityEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although customer‐perceived value is discussed widely in the literature, few empirical studies have been conducted due to an absence of operational measures. Reports on the development of measures and tests two customer‐perceived value structures using data collected from industrial customers of the information technology industry. The findings generally support both structures and provide empirical support for a value proposition with 13 value drivers. Furthermore, results indicate that most of the 13 drivers are assessed in a similar way by industrial customers of three service sectors surveyed, ICE (information, communication, entertainment), distribution and finance. Flexibility and responsiveness – two service‐related benefits – are important value drivers for all the business customers surveyed. Relationship value drivers are assessed the most differently in two of the three sectors studied, finance and ICE (information, communication, entertainment).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations683
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Industrial MarketingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207