MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130048733 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2013.06.008

Effects of self-service technology on customer value and customer readiness: The case of banking industry

2013· article· en· W2130048733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Parviz Khadem, Seyed Mahdi Mousavi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCustomer valueCustomer advocacySelf-serviceCustomer equityMarketingCustomer retentionBanking industryService qualityValue (mathematics)Service (business)Customer delightCustomer serviceCustomer profitabilityCustomer to customerCustomer intelligenceBusiness administrationComputer scienceAccountingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent development on internet banking has contributed to this industry, significantly. People could do their banking transactions by clicking a bottom and transfer funds, pay bills, etc. In this paper, we present an empirical investigation to find out the effects of different factors on continuous internet banking. The proposed study of this paper has adopted a questionnaire, which was originally developed by Effects of self-service technology on customer value and customer readiness: The case of Internet banking. Internet Research, 18(4), 427-446.]. We have used Pearson correlation test as well as stepwise regression techniques to verify the effect of different factors and the results of our survey show that four variables of easy implementation, usefulness, cost reduction and self-control positively influence continuous internet banking.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207