Customer's Perspectives and Risk Issues on E-Bankingin Turkey; Should We Still be Online?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent and expansion of globalization and the development of new technologies forced the banks to launch new channels to gain competitive advantage, reduce their costs, improve their financial services, enlarge their customer databases, progress their financial positions through innovative products and boost their general customer loyalty. Today, banks are switching to multi-channel distribution of financial services through internet. This paper tries to assess electronic banking in terms of a multi-channel distribution technique. The objective of this research is to examine the progression of Internet-banking in an emerging market, namely Turkey. This is done through a survey among online customers of Turkish banks and the proposition of strategies to control and fight against the risky issues associated with electronic banking (e-banking) activities. The usage percentage of online banking, the awareness of customers about the online services and their expectations from online banking activities in Turkey are evaluated through a survey and in depth interviews with online customers. This paper is organized as follows: the first part includes a brief literature review and examines previous research on the critical topics of “trends in global banking” and “risk issues in ebanking”. Second part includes remarks on growth of online banking in Turkey. In the third part, the survey methodology is introduced and the results of the survey are analyzed. Fourth part concludes with some comments for further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".