MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056443607 · doi:10.1504/gber.2013.053065

The influence of demographic variables on relationship banking: an international study

2013· article· en· W2056443607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chantal Rootman, M. Tait, Gary D. Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Business and Economics Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingLikert scaleMarketingSample (material)Descriptive statisticsBusinessOrder (exchange)Scale (ratio)Empirical researchPsychologyStatisticsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical investigation among clients and managers to identify the influence of demographic variables on relationship banking. Primary data was collected from respondents in South Africa, Canada and the UK. Convenient snowball sampling was used to select the sample which comprised 637 banking clients and 67 bank managers. The two research instruments were structured seven-point Likert-type scale questionnaires, one distributed to clients and the other to managers. Quantitative statistical data analyses were conducted as descriptive statistics, reliability tests and linear modelling were performed. The empirical results show that, in addition to the bank-related aspects of personalisation and fees, various demographic characteristics of clients influence a bank’s relationship marketing. This study could be of significant value to South African retail banks in order to consider the relationship marketing strategies of Canadian and UK banks. In terms of practical banking strategies, the study adds value in respect of personalised offerings and the development and implementation of fair fee structures relating to different client categories, which would ultimately improve bank-client relationships.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Business and Economics ReviewSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207