THE MODEL OF THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE QUALITY AND MARKETING EXPERIENCE ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTIONWITH BRAND EQUITY AS AN INTERVENING VARIABLE IN BANK JAMBI INDONESIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research objective was to analyze the service quality effect and experiential marketing on customer satisfaction with brand equity as an intervening variable at Bank Jambi. This research is verification, which is to test the truth of a hypothesis. The unit of analysis in this study is Bank Jambi customers. Primary data is obtained by distributing questionnaires to 400 customers. Testing the hypothesis by analyzing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results of the analysis conclude that service quality variables, experiential marketing and brand equity significantly influence Bank Jambi customer satisfaction both partially and simultaneously. Service quality and experiential marketing variables have a significant indirect effect on customer satisfaction through invervening brand equity variables. The model significant to explain all the variables but in the future needs more test for the other variables to make the model more precise. Service quality variables are more dominant variables affecting customer satisfaction. Increasing understanding about the model of the influence of service quality and marketing experience on customer satisfaction with brand equity as an intervening variable in indonesia jambi banks.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".