A Conceptual Paper on SERVQUAL-Framework for Assessing Quality of Internet of Things (IoT) Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service quality possesses the vital prominence in usability of innovative products and services. As Technological innovation has made the life synchronized and effective, Internet of Things (IoT) is matter of discussion everywhere. From users’ perspective, IoT services are always embraced by various system characteristics of security and performance. A service quality model can better present the preference of such technology customers. The study intends to project theoretical model of service quality for Internet of Things (IoT). Based on the existing models of service quality and the literature on internet of things, a framework is proposed to conceptualize and measure service quality for internet of things. This study establishes the IoT-SERVQUAL model with four dimensions (i.e., Privacy, Functionality, Efficiency and Tangibility) of multiple service quality models. These dimensions are essential and inclined towards the users’ leaning of IoT services. This paper contributes to research on internet of things services by the development of a comprehensive framework for customers’ quality apprehensions. This model will previse the expression of information secrecy concerns of users related with Internet of Things (IoT). This research will advance understanding of service quality in modern day technology and assist firms to devise the fruitful services structure.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".