MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041026129 · doi:10.19044/esj.2020.v16n16p244

Effects of Customer Knowledge Management on Marketing Management and Results: Case Study in Business Companies, FARS

2020· article· en· W3041026129 on OpenAlexaff
Seyedmohammad Hosseinifard, Fateme Tohidi, Hamidreza Abootalebi Jahromi, Navid Abootalebi Jahromi, Nakisa Adib, Abdolhossein Ayoubi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Scientific Journal ESJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsYorkville University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical populationCronbach's alphaMarketingMarketing managementPath analysis (statistics)BusinessReliability (semiconductor)Knowledge managementStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of customer knowledge management on marketing management and marketing results in Fars business companies. Statistical population of the present research includes 1135 employees and managers of Fars business companies which with using formula, 290 individuals were questioned with random sampling. To collect data, standard questionnaires including Vorhies & Morgan’s (2005) marketing questionnaire, Ling-Yee’s (2005) marketing management questionnaire, Alegri’s (2011) knowledge management questionnaire were used. In order to confirm their reliability, their coefficient Cronbach's alphas are respectively 0.82, 0.79 and 0.88. For data analysis, inferential statistics, Pearson correlation test, Single variable regression, Path analysis and SPSS software version 22 were used. The results showed that there is a positive and meaningful relationship between customer knowledge management, marketing results(efficiency) and marketing management. Also, knowledge management had a positive and significant impact on marketing management and marketing results. Moreover, proposed conceptual model is supported.

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)0.010
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Scientific Journal ESJSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207