MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337264659 · doi:10.1002/mar.20881

Long‐Term Oriented Marketing Relationships and Ethical Conduct in Outsourcing Sector

2016· article· en· W2337264659 on OpenAlexaff
Nelson Oly Ndubisi, Naresh K. Malhotra, Celine Marie Capel, James Agarwal, Elsa Bawani Satkunasingam, Gibson C. Ndubisi, Ashutosh Patil

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutsourcingContext (archaeology)MarketingBusinessService providerRelationship marketingMediationPerspective (graphical)Quality (philosophy)Service (business)Principal (computer security)Public relationsStructural equation modelingService qualityTerm (time)PsychologySociologyMarketing managementPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The study evaluates the positive effect of long‐term oriented marketing relationship on ethical conduct from the perspective of the service provider (i.e., the agent‐firm), by integrating the relevant literature from relationship marketing, ethics, and long‐term orientation domains. The paper proposes that service providers that build relationship quality with their clients will display increased ethical conduct toward them. Specifically, the study examines the positive influence of the dimensions of relationship quality (that are relevant to the offshoring services context) that the service provider firm's employees undertake and their impact on ethical conduct. Overall, the results indicate that the commitment‐only full mediation model of relationship marketing variables on ethical conduct is a better representation than both direct‐effects model and other competing mediating models examined in this study. Fundamentally, it means that customer service officers should incorporate long‐term orientation and commitment in their principal–agent relationships that will provide the impetus for undertaking ethical behavior. The article concludes with a discussion and implications of the findings.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207