MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031204161 · doi:10.31181/jiedm200101149m

ELICITING CONSUMERS’ PREFERENCES IN SERVICE SECTOR VIA CONJOINT ANALYSIS: A CASE STUDY ON CREDIT CARD

2020· article· en· W3031204161 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Mamaghani, Mohammad Hasan Aghdaie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Engineering and Decision Making · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjoint analysisAnalytic hierarchy processProfitability indexMarketingBusinessCredit cardProduct (mathematics)Service (business)Tertiary sector of the economyNew product developmentComputer scienceOperations researchEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsMicroeconomicsPreference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triumphant designing a new product or service is of paramount importance for the profitability, growth, and success of any business. Besides, companies need to wrestle with each other to achieve a higher market share by offering customer-oriented products or services. The more suitable a product is, the more likely it is to be sold. Hence, designing a customer-oriented new product or service is an integral part of all marketing plans. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach combined with Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), in our study Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) for feature selection and Conjoint Analysis (CA) for market simulation. A case study in one of the prestigious banks in Iran is conducted to show the applicability of the approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial Engineering and Decision MakingSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207