The effect of ambient scent on consumer experience: Evidence from mobile industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the effect of the environmental scent on the sensory and physical aspects of the consumer's experience.Samples were tested in a pre-test and post-test group for two days with one week interval.At the time of the post-test, the subjects were exposed to a gardening fragrance when exposed to customer service.In this paper, an independent variable called environmental notes and six dependent variables including feelings of comfort, perception of waiting time, perceived service quality, loyalty, charming sensation, and service satisfaction were used for testing.This research is, in terms of purpose or orientation, applied and operational, descriptive and experimental.In this study, alternative assumptions about the effect of the environmental scent on feelings of comfort, perception of waiting time, loyalty and charming sensation were approved, but the effect of the environmental scent on perceived service quality of service and service satisfaction were not approved.According to the results of this research, it can be said that consumers' environmental perception had a positive impact on the sensory dimension of customer's experience in customer service, but did not affect their physical experiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".