CustomerâÂÂs Choice amongst Self Service Technology (SST)Channels in Retail Banking: A Study UsingAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the retail banking context, convergence of technologies has given birth to different channels of distribution like Automatic Teller machines (ATM), internet banking, and mobile banking. This enables the customer to avail the banking services at any time and any where. These technological interfaces are known as self service technologies (SSTs). Customers availing banking services through these SSTs get more benefits in terms of time, cost and energy. Despite these benefits the customer trial, adoption and repeat usage of SSTs vary among banking customers. Although the kinds of service one can avail from these SST are similar, the patronage among the SSTs differs. The SST channel choice could be attributed to various factors viz., Nature of service to be availed or purpose, Perceived risk, Requirements and Benefits. When it comes to predicting customer priority among alternatives, Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) has been proved as an effective technique. This paper explores the factors influencing customer choice of SSTs by employing AHP technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".