MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995205630 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.023

Understanding consumer satisfaction with railway transportation service: An application of 7Ps marketing mix

2019· article· en· W2995205630 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Quang Hung, Thi Hai Anh Vu

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketing mixMarketingBusinessService (business)Customer satisfactionConsumer satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Railway transportation (RT) plays a crucial role and it is an inseparable part of one country's main traffic network. However, due to the advantages of aviation industry and other modes of transportation, the share of RT of total traffic volume gradually decreases and RT enterprises are facing various difficulties. Customer satisfaction is one of the essential factors for the survival of any business organization. In order to accordingly offer products and services, RT companies must understand their customers and find out to what extent the consumer is satisfied with their offered services and products. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of each factor on the passengers' satisfaction and freight owners for RT service in Vietnam's context. The study utilizes 7Ps marketing mix (Product, Price, Place, Promotion, People, Process and Physical evidence) to analyze the customer satisfaction level. The collected data are analyzed through the multiple regression method by the use of SPSS software to understand the relationship of marketing mix elements and consumers' satisfaction. The study finding helps us guide the RT operators on their marketing strategy formulation. Customers will benefit through enhanced knowledge regarding both core and augmented products associated with RT services. It is also expected that this work can be used as a reference material for RT managers to enhance competitiveness.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207