MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803952480 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v10n2p151

E-Banking Effects on Customer Satisfaction: The Survey on Clients in Jordan Banking Sector

2018· article· en· W2803952480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thabit Altobishi, Gizem Erboz, Szilárd Podruzsik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer satisfactionBusinessMarketingPersonalizationCustomer retentionOrder (exchange)Customer advocacyCustomer equityService qualityFinanceService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In general, the managers in financial organizations and institutions are willing to maintain customer satisfaction, in order to minimize their cost and strengthen their competitive advantage.In Jordan, most of the commercial banks offer their banking services electronically. Therefore, this research aims to investigate the effects of electronic banking services on customer satisfaction in the lights of survey questions asked to 175 clients in Jordan. The reviewed literature indicates that convenience, privacy, cost, ease of use, personalization and customization and security are six indicators that affect level of customer satisfaction with E-Banking. The survey questions conducted in these six indicators and statistical results shows a positive relationship between level of customer satisfaction and usage of E-Banking among customers. There is positive relationship between five indicators and level of customer satisfaction and usage of E-Banking. Only Privacy is not discovered to have an effect on Customer Satisfaction in Jordan.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207