MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085086200 · doi:10.1177/1094670503005004005

When Does Commitment Lead to Loyalty?

2003· article· en· W2085086200 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Fullerton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Service Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCustomer retentionLoyalty business modelCustomer advocacyMarketingCustomer to customerRelationship marketingOrganizational commitmentCustomer delightLoyaltyCustomer intelligenceService (business)Service qualityPsychologyMarketing managementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Customer commitment is now regarded as a key variable in marketing relationships. The article investigates the roles played by different forms of commitment in the relationship between customers and their service provider. It was found that when customer commitment is based on shared values and identification, it has a uniformly positive impact on customer loyalty. When customer commitment is based on switching costs and dependence, it has mixed effects on customer loyalty. In addition, it was found that there were significant interactions between these two forms of commitment on customer loyalty. If we are to understand the role of customer commitment, we must have a solid understanding of the nature of commitment present in the relationship. These findings have important implications for the development and management of service relationships because it is not necessarily the case that more customer commitment is better for either the service provider or the customer.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations856
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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