MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559571834 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n6p128

Is Service Quality a Correlate of Customer Satisfaction? Evidence from Nigerian Airports

2016· article· en· W2559571834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James A. Adeniran, Binuyo Adekunle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer satisfactionService qualityBusinessMarketingPort harcourtQuality (philosophy)Service (business)International airportQuestionnaireTransport engineeringSocioeconomicsEngineeringStatisticsEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the relationship between dimensions of service quality and customer satisfaction from the perspectives of passengers that travel through Nigerian airports. Survey methodology was adopted for the study. Cross-sectional data were collected at four International airports with the aid of structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to 600 passengers across Lagos, Abuja, Kano and Port-Harcourt airports with 71% response rate. Regression analyses reveal that although the relationship between each of the dimensions of service quality and customer satisfaction is significant at 5%, the multiple correlation coefficient ranges from weak to moderate thus suggesting that the dimensions of service quality requires further enhancement for customers satisfaction to be improved upon by the Airport Authority in Nigeria. The study advocate decisive action by the Airport Authority in Nigeria to initiate policies geared at enhancing dimensions of service quality for improved customer satisfaction at various Nigerian Airports.

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)0.010
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207