MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760551772 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2017.8.001

Service quality in Islamic banks: The role of PAKSERV model, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty

2017· article· en· W2760551772 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Feras MI Alnaser, Mazuri Abd Ghani, Samar Rahi

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCustomer satisfactionLoyalty business modelService qualityCustomer retentionMarketingLoyaltyCustomer delightCustomer advocacyIslamService (business)History

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In service oriented industry, it is very difficult to set a standard rule to satisfy customers. As customer awareness increases on the service offered by banks, expectation from services quality increases too. Quality of a service in banking industry plays an essential role in measuring the performance of banks. Thus, the present study examines the PAKSERV model to measure customer satisfaction and customer loyalty of Islamic Banks in Palestine. A survey method was adopted where data was collected from 482 respondents through structured questionnaire. Structural equation model (SEM) was applied to check the hypothesis relationship between proposed constructs. Statistical finding revealed that PAKSERV model had significant impact on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in Islamic banks of Palestine. Results also revealed that in cultural context PAKSERV model was the most appropriate scale and had predictive power of service quality in banking industry of Palestine. The findings of this study will be helpful for managers and policy makers to improve the service quality in Islamic banks of Palestine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207