MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790996017 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n2p205

Relationship Marketing in Tertiary Education: Empirical Study of Relationship Commitment and Student Loyalty in Hong Kong

2018· article· en· W2790996017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Wong, Raymond Wong, Sherry Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualLoyaltyRelationship marketingHigher educationStructural equation modelingMarketingTertiary institutionPositive relationshipEmpirical researchBusinessPsychologyPublic relationsSocial psychologyMarketing managementPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study attempts to investigate the applicability of relationship marketing concepts in the private tertiary education industry. With the rapid growth of tertiary education and new academic structure in Hong Kong, it is interesting to investigate the relationship between relationship commitment and student loyalty, and the key determinants of relationship commitment, in a leading private tertiary education institution in Hong Kong. Questionnaires were designed to collect data, and structural equation modeling approach was adopted to evaluate the explanatory power and casual links of the model. The results indicate that relationship commitment is a driver of student loyalty. Relationship benefits and trust are found to have positive influence on relationship commitment. Relationship termination costs and shared values are found to have non-significant roles in determining relationship commitment in private tertiary education environment, while shared value has a significant positive impact on trust. The research provides new insights to the management of private tertiary education providers in building relationship with students and resources allocation. The study discusses the implications of the findings and suggests areas for future research.

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)0.003
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207