MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155723491 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n18p202

A Structural Approach on Students’ Satisfaction Level with University Cafeteria

2014· article· en· W2155723491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mui Ling Dyana Chang, Norazah Mohd Sukı, Annaswamy Nalini

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCafeteriaStructural equation modelingQuality (philosophy)SustainabilityService qualityPsychologyMedical educationSampling (signal processing)Food serviceService (business)Applied psychologyComputer scienceMarketingMathematicsStatisticsMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was carried out to identify the relationship between the food quality, price fairness, staff performance, and ambience of the university cafeteria with students’ satisfaction. The survey method was employed in testing the proposed hypotheses via a structured self-administered questionnaire. This survey was conducted in Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) and a total of 93 undergraduates were selected for questioning via convenience sampling method. The results were generated by using the Structural equation modeling (SEM) technique via AMOS 21.0 computer program with maximum likelihood estimation. Based on the SEM technique, food quality and price fairness are the two most important dimensions that influence the students satisfaction on café service quality. Next, the students give less priority to staff performance and ambience. The results were differing from the previous study. The university cafeteria should take serious measurement in improving the food quality and price for long term sustainability.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207