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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.062
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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