The Success Of Chains: Customer Loyalty Or Customer Comfort?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="MsoBlockText" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in;"><span style="font-style: normal; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The quest to understand customer behaviour has led researchers down many interesting paths. Is it satisfaction with the product, a feeling of belonging, a basic need, or perhaps something more? The literature lends itself to many theories and constructs that try to pin point what makes the consumer tick. Generally the literature defines both physical and psychological aspects of the consumer, that can help better predict the behaviour of the market. The research leaves many questions: Does one rely on the other? Are we measuring too much? Or are we missing the main points? This paper will look at the psychological aspect of the literature in trying to develop the Consumer Comfort construct (Spake, Beatty, Brockman and Crutchfield 2003), and to identify the basic determinates needed to measure buyer behaviour.</span></span></p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".