The Investigation on Brand Image of University Education and Students’ Word-of-Mouth Behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to find how the brand image and satisfaction of universities influence university students’ word-of-mouth behavior, including the sharing of satisfying experiencesand recommendations to others. This study conducted a questionnaire survey and distributed 400 questionnaires to students and graduates of universities in Taiwan; 336 valid questionnaires were retrieved. Data were analyzed using Structural Equation Models (SEM). According to the findings, brand image significantly and positively influences loyalty; satisfaction significantly and positively influences loyalty; loyalty significantly and positively influences haring of satisfying experience; and loyalty significantly and positively influences recommendations to others. Brand image and satisfaction can influence the sharing of satisfying experience sand recommendations to others by the moderating effect of loyalty. The loyalty effect model of higher education institutes constructed by this study could explain and predict the effects of brand image and satisfaction of higher education institutes on university students’ word-of-mouth behavior, and it could function as the criteria for marketing strategies of higher education institutes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it