MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407806674 · doi:10.4172/1204-5357.s1-007

Evaluation of Customer Loyalty to Different Format Retailers

2015· article· en· W2407806674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noskova EV Romanova IM

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingLoyalty business modelBusinessLoyaltyHypermarketContext (archaeology)Customer retentionCustomer satisfactionAdvertisingPromotion (chess)PopulationService qualityService (business)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article notes that at present for different retailers an important strategic objective is to create loyal customers. Under these conditions, the urgency to identify and assess the factors affecting the formation of customer loyalty increases. The purpose of this study is to estimate factors affecting customer loyalty with an average level of income in the context of different formats of retail trade of food specialization in the cities with a population of 1 million people. In the study a methodical approach to customer loyalty and factors it forming is developed. The basic factors of customer loyalty in the context of the marketing mix 7P are discovered (product, price, place, promotion, personnel, physical evidence, and process). A quantitative assessment of the factors of customer loyalty on the basis of the calculation of the index of satisfaction in the context of retail formats (hypermarket, supermarket, and shop near home) is given. The study may be of interest to market operators of retail services in the development of programs to improve customer loyalty to different retailers.

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)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207