Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss and assess the structural characteristics (conceptual utility) of the most popular classification and predictive techniques employed in customer relationship management and customer scoring and to evaluate their classification and predictive precision. Design/methodology/approach A sample of customers' credit rating and socio‐demographic profiles are employed to evaluate the analytic and classification properties of discriminant analysis, binary logistic regression, artificial neural networks, C5 algorithm, and regression trees employing Chi‐squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID). Findings With regards to interpretability and the conceptual utility of the parameters generated by the five techniques, logistic regression provides easily interpretable parameters through its logit. The logits can be interpreted in the same way as regression slopes. In addition, the logits can be converted to odds providing a common sense evaluation of the relative importance of each independent variable. Finally, the technique provides robust statistical tests to evaluate the model parameters. Finally, both CHAID and the C5 algorithm provide visual tools (regression tree) and semantic rules (rule set for classification) to facilitate the interpretation of the model parameters. These can be highly desirable properties when the researcher attempts to explain the conceptual and operational foundations of the model. Originality/value Most treatments of complex classification procedures have been undertaken idiosyncratically, that is, evaluating only one technique. This paper evaluates and compares the conceptual utility and predictive precision of five different classification techniques on a moderate sample size and provides clear guidelines in technique selection when undertaking customer scoring and classification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".