MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095495719 · doi:10.1177/1094670511425698

Customer Delight

2011· article· en· W2095495719 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Service Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationMarketingValue (mathematics)BusinessCustomer satisfactionPsychologyMetric (unit)Service (business)MathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The value of treating customer satisfaction (CS) as a marketing objective began to be questioned in the 1990s. Achieving customer delight (CD) was the suggested alternative. However, CD is used for a distinct response and for an upper zone of positive nonlinear response to CS. This research investigates these two perspectives by examining the linearity of how CS influences behavioral intentions while controlling for CD measured as a distinct response. Unique data, crossing online retailers with respondents, confirm CD and CS are distinct responses that both determine behavioral intentions. CD has a positive quadratic effect; contrary to the zone of delight conceptualization, CS has a negative cubic effect. This suggests that CD is a service performance metric that needs to be monitored and managed just as much as CS. Once CS is above average, resources should be used to increase CD rather than CS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.142 · 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