MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766809547 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n12p113

What Effects Repurchase Intention of Online Shopping

2017· article· en· W2766809547 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lily Suhaily, Yasintha Soelasih

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLISRELBusinessMarketingMediationStructural equation modelingService qualityCustomer satisfactionAdvertisingPerceptionQuality (philosophy)Service (business)PsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the internet raises opportunities for the marketing of a product and bring new forms for retail transactions, one of which is online shopping. Furthermore with the Internet, online consumers more easily gain access to information and they offered a wide variety of products and services that can be selected at competitive prices. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is influence of E-Service Quality, Price Perception and Experiential Marketing to Repurchase Intention which mediated by Customer Satisfaction in On-line Shopping. The amount of samples is 180 respondents. Questionnaires were distributed to respondents who have shopped using online shopping with random sampling method. This study uses data analysis of Structural Equation Modeling by using Lisrel software. The result showed that there is the influence of e-service quality to customer satisfaction and to repurchase intention, while repurchase intention has negative influence occurs. Furthermore, price has no influence to customer satisfaction but has an influence to repurchase intention. Experiential marketing has no influence to customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. Customer satifaction has positive effect on repurchase intention. The effect of e-service quality and experiential marketing through customer satisfaction as mediation variable has no influence to repurchase intention, while price perception influence to repurchase intention.

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)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations95
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207