MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567477754

A REVIEW OF SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN BANKING SERVICES: GLOBAL SCENARIO

2016· review· en· W2567477754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Subashini Rajagopal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer satisfactionService qualityBusinessCustomer retentionLoyalty business modelMarketingCustomer advocacyQuality (philosophy)Customer to customerLoyaltyService (business)Customer delight
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamics of service quality and satisfaction of customer on banks situated in various countries indicates that earlier studies offered no consensus over the subject, to confirm the issues and trends of these factors which regulate service quality and customer satisfaction. Now-a-days all public, private and foreign banks play a vital role in retail banking and provide lot of core banking services to all their rural and urban customers to maintain customer loyalty, retention and providing 100% customer satisfaction. But there is some evidence that few public, private and foreign banks do not give importance to their retail customer relating to maintenance of service quality and customer satisfaction. In this regard, this research paper focuses with a purpose to report the findings of existing literature to identify decompose and define the dynamics of quality service and satisfaction of customer towards all banking services in Global scenario including India. The contribution of the study would broadly be two fold namely quality service and satisfaction of customers in banks across various countries. This literature review based study will definitely help new researchers to identify their research problems for their research study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207