MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808600871 · doi:10.17722/ijrbt.v10i3.497

Segmentation of business saving customer to improve average balance based on structural equation modeling (SEM) and recency, frequency, monetary (RFM): Case study Bank XYZ in Indonesia

2018· article· en· W2808600871 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jerry Heikal, Anne Putri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Business and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingBalance (ability)BusinessSegmentationComputer scienceEconometricsOperations managementEconomicsArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As business players, entrepreneurs certainly need bank products and supports that provide fast and easy services with wide-spread network in Indonesia. RFM is a segmentation method based on past data and create an index on a client where the high loyalty and assume the behaviour of customers in the index will be the same in the future. Certainly, customers with high RFM score were customers who become the target of the Bank because these customers have high loyalty and valuable for the Bank. In this study, segmentation performed based on transactions which affect the increase in average balance using Structural Equation Model (SEM). The objects of RFM segmentation is to identify the customer in order to build a marketing strategy for each segment with different levels of loyalty. As the segmentation results we found three driver categories, High Recency, Middle Recency and Low Recency customer category. High Recency is considered Active customer where campaign category can be cross/up-selling and promotional accordingly with their Frequency and Monetary. Middle Recency category is considered Risky customer where campaign category can be retention program accordingly with their Frequency and Monetary. Last, Low Recency is considered Churn customer where campaign category is reactivation

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)0.001
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 score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in Business and TechnologySame topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207