MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094329883 · doi:10.51594/ijmer.v2i5.172

EQUITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN RELATION TO PRODUCT QUALITY: AN EVIDENCE FROM THREE PRIVATE COMPANIES IN BURKINA FASO

2020· article· en· W3094329883 on OpenAlexaff
Théophile Bindeouè Nassè, Prof . Alidou Ouédraogo, Stéphane Aimé Metchebon Takougang, Eric Zidouemba

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingCustomer satisfactionCustomer equityBrand equityCustomer retentionProduct (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Customer advocacyService qualityService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies in the context of Burkina Faso have shown the link betweenequity and customer relationship management. The purpose of the present study is to show the relationship between equity and customer satisfaction in relation to product quality. Equity and ethical practices in marketing are essential to competition and to the sustainable development of companies particularly in the West African Context. This research focuses on the contributionsoffair business practices from business to customers in term of customer satisfaction in relation to product quality. Data collection is performed with a questionnaire addressed to customers of two Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) andone Very Small Enterprise (VSEs) in BurkinaFaso. The quantitative datais processed using two different softwareSPSS and Sphinx IQ. The results show that in the three private companies there is a strong relationship between equity and customer satisfaction in relation to quality.The recommendation is that equity and fair practices should be observed for a better management system of companies and for a maximum satisfaction of customers.

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)0.002
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship ResearchSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207