MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792697052 · doi:10.5539/ass.v14n3p71

E-Service Quality and Perceived Value as Predictors of Customer Loyalty towards Online Supermarkets

2018· article· en· W2792697052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M C Minimol

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingService qualityLoyalty business modelLoyaltyValue (mathematics)Service (business)Quality (philosophy)Conceptual modelAdvertisingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service quality is progressively acknowledged as a significant characteristic of electronic commerce. As online comparison of the technical features of products is largely costless, viable, and easier than comparison of merchandises through traditional networks, service quality is perceived as the strategic element of customer loyalty in electronic commerce spectrum. A conceptual model explaining the relationship among e‐service quality dimensions, customer’s perceived value and loyalty towards online super markets is proposed and discussed in the present study. The research design adopted for the current study was descriptive in nature. The research approach followed was field study, by administering a structured questionnaire. Online survey method was adopted for data collection, so the data source is online shoppers in India. The study pinpointed that the four aspects of e‐service quality, namely, fulfilment, system availability, efficiency, and privacy positively influence the perceived value. It also disclosed that perceived value positively contributed to customer loyalty. The study results brought about the catalytic role of e-service quality and perceived value in online shopping framework. While designing websites of online supermarkets, the four pillars of electronic service quality needs to be focused on, considering their potential to promote customer loyalty to the store.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207