MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073564594 · doi:10.1108/14684520810923935

Web site design, trust, satisfaction and e‐loyalty: the Indian experience

2008· article· en· W2073564594 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Cyr, G. S Kindra, Satyabhusan Dash

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Information Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyWeb designVendorWeb analyticsThe InternetWorld Wide WebOriginalityBusinessMarketingCustomer satisfactionComputer scienceWeb developmentWeb intelligenceQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose With the rapid expansion of global online markets including India, researchers and practitioners are challenged to understand drivers of customer satisfaction, trust and loyalty towards web sites. The paper aims to focus on web site design, which is expected to influence whether customers revisit an online vendor. Design/methodology/approach Participants in India evaluated a local and foreign web site of the same online vendor. Surveys and interviews were used to collect the data. Findings The results indicate significant preference for the local web site in almost all design categories. Further, the local site instilled greater trust, satisfaction and loyalty. Data collected for this study are compared with parallel work conducted using the same procedures in four other countries. Research limitations/implications The current investigation is relevant for researchers who aim to expand knowledge concerning the impact of web site design related to user trust, satisfaction and loyalty. The work also has implications for web designers or managers who seek to enhance the market attraction and retention of online web sites. Limitations of the study are that both the local and foreign web sites used were Samsung web sites and that only a single task (searching for a cell phone) was used. Originality/value Few studies have examined web design in relation to user outcomes such as trust, satisfaction and loyalty in international markets.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.273
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

Citations162
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOnline Information ReviewSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207