MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611545865

Ethical Communication in A Retail Banking Call Center Sales Position

2017· article· en· W2611545865 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacklyn Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLeadership and Management in Organizations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyProduct (mathematics)MarketingBusinessPersonal sellingPosition (finance)Service (business)Customer relationship managementCustomer serviceCenter (category theory)Quality (philosophy)Sales managementComputer scienceSales promotionPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The communication problem call center salespersons in retail banking are facing does not understand what ethical communication is or why it is important. Without this knowledge, they do not have the ability to use ethics when selling products to customers such as a home equity line of credit. This is a detailed product and requires the salesperson to have specific knowledge and skills to properly sell it. These skills include the ability to provide quality customer service, correctly use empathy to build long term relationships with management and customers alike, the ability to adapt and cooperate with change to policies, procedures, and possible changes in their current role, and most importantly the ability to use ethics when making decisions. In other words, for a call center salesperson to be successful they must understand how to ethically communicate while providing a specific sale or service to a customer. The best way to achieve this is through education and training.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0350.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicLeadership and Management in OrganizationsFrench-language works237,207