Quantitative Evaluation of the Internet Banking Service Encounter's Quality: Comparative Study between Jordan and the UK Retail Banks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the differences in the internet banking service encounter's quality between clicks-and-mortar retail banks in Jordan and the different internet banking models of the UK retail banks, and between clicks-and-mortar and dot com. retail banks in the UK, the web sites were evaluated by using the web site quantitative evaluation method (QEM) that developed by Mateos et al. (2001) and Miranda et al. (2006), the evaluation of the banks' web sites was conducted in March 2008 for sixteen clicks-and-mortar retail banks in Jordan, eleven clicks-and-mortar retail banks in the UK, and six dot com. retail banks in the UK, the results indicated that; the internet banking service encounter quality of the clicks-and-mortar in Jordan retail banks is very close to the UK banks, further quality of internet banking service encounter quality of the clicks-and-mortar retail banks in the UK are very close to the dot com. retail banks in the UK.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".