MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122065369 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v19i12.785

Current Trends in Service Quality: A Transportation Sector Review

2017· article· en· W2122065369 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingService qualityService (business)Quality (philosophy)Service guaranteePerceptionCustomer satisfactionTertiary sector of the economyService designService providerPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have emphasized the influence a service employee has on customer perceptions of service quality. Results indicate that employees’ positive and negative behaviors are highly correlated to customer overall satisfaction (Kattara, Weheba, & El-said, 2008). Moreover, research indicates that many service firms fail in delivering service quality to their customers; their frontline employees deliver inferior value to the end user, and this attitude and interaction performed during the service encounter influences customer perceptions of the service delivered. Although many studies have examined general quality management practices, industry-specific studies on quality management practices and factors that influence their success in the shipping industry are rather few (Cheng & Choy, 2007). This review hopes to add to the body of knowledge by positing that truck drivers acting as frontline service employees, play a fundamental role in a company’s assessment of service quality as these drivers deliver cargo to the end user.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.020
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207