An Empirical Study of Customersâ Perception of E-BankingService Based on Time Usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Banks have invested heavily in developing online competence in the hope of attracting customers to the new, cheaper service channel. This research attempts to investigate customers’ perception of different time usage of banking website services. This study adopts a convenient sampling strategy and chooses Northern Taiwan residents to be subjects. Research findings are as follows. It means two different types of customers(i.e., short-time usage, long-time usage online banking customers) have different value perceptions of exploration factor, security factor and specialty information service factor but similar evaluations of transaction technicalities factor, decision-making convenience factor and interactive interrogation factor. It implies that the utilitarian functions (transaction technicalities factor, decision-making convenience factor and interactive interrogation factor) are the essential website service for most online banking customers. The results show online banking services need to intensify the core functions and design these utilitarian features as effectively as possible to satisfy all online banking customers’ need. On the other hand, providing better service on exploration and specialty information factor is more successful to keep and attract long-time usage online banking customers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".