MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788039697 · doi:10.1108/apjml-05-2017-0096

Examination of customer-centric measures among different types of customers in the context of major Canadian ski resort

2018· article· en· W2788039697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matti Haverila, Kai Haverila

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingCustomer satisfactionBusinessContext (archaeology)OriginalityValue (mathematics)AdvertisingPsychologyGeographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Customer-centric measures such as customer satisfaction and repurchase intent are important indicators of performance. The purpose of this paper is to examine what is the strength and significance of the path coefficients in a customer satisfaction model consisting of various customer-centric measures for different types of ski resort customer (i.e. day, weekend and ski holiday visitors as well as season pass holders) in a ski resort in Canada. Design/methodology/approach The results were analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling approach for the four different types ski resort visitors. Findings There appeared to differences in the strength and significance in the customer satisfaction model relationships for the four types of ski resort visitors indicating that the a priori managerial classification of the ski resort visitors is warranted. Originality/value The research pinpoints differences in the strength and significance in the relationships between customer-centric measures for four different types ski resort visitors, i.e. day, weekend and ski holiday visitors as well as season pass holders, which have significant managerial implications for the marketing practice of the ski resort.

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)0.005
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and LogisticsSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207