MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046273528 · doi:10.1177/1094670504273965

Silent Voices

2005· article· en· W2046273528 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Charles Chebat, Moshe Davidow, Isabelle Codjovi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Service Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotiveModerationRedressSituational ethicsComplaintPsychologySample (material)Social psychologyCognitionSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although noncomplaining dissatisfied consumers represent a vast majority of the dissatisfied consumers, they have not yet received adequate attention from marketing researchers. To understand the paradoxical combination of dissatisfaction and absence of complaint, the authors use the Lazarus cognitive-emotive model of coping with situational challenge. They added a moderator, the Seeking Redress Propensity (SRP) to this model and then developed a theoretical model and a set of hypotheses. A sample of consumers who had experienced a negative incident with the bank were administered a questionnaire by telephone. The sample was designed in such a way that half of them had complained and half had not. It was found that SRP is a significant moderator. In addition, SRP is shown to be strongly related to the likelihood of complaining. Lazarus’s model is basically supported, mostly for the customers scoring higher on SRP. Theoretical and managerial implications are proposed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2660.160

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations233
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Service ResearchSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207