MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116888713 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v1n2p263

Commercial Bank Selection: Comparison between Single and Multiple Bank Users in Malaysia

2009· article· en· W2116888713 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Safiek Mokhlis, Hayatul Safrah Salleh, Nik Hazimah Nik Mat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractivenessSelection (genetic algorithm)Sample (material)BusinessFeelingService (business)MarketingEmpirical researchComputer sciencePsychologySocial psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an empirical study of selection criteria employed by single and multiple bank users and to see if certain personal characteristics can be used to differentiate these two segments. The study chose to sample a specific consumer segment in Malaysia, namely the young-adults, which have not been given enough attention in the literature. Selection factors of which both single and multiple bank users had variation were attractiveness, branch location, ATM service, financial benefits and secure feeling. Multiple-bankers appear to place significantly more importance to all these factors. Female customers engage in multiple banking significantly more than their male counterparts. The implications of the findings were discussed and opportunities for future research were provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207