MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122497319 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v6n4p89

Building Telecoms Service Quality for Brand Loyalty

2013· article· en· W3122497319 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeremiah Iyamabo, Grace Ndukwe, Olutayo Otubanjo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingContext (archaeology)Competitor analysisService (business)Service qualityLoyaltyQuality (philosophy)Loyalty business modelExtant taxonService providerService guaranteeBrand loyaltyService designAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service firms dependent on high technological infrastructure operate within a different service context from typical professional service firms. As a result, there is a tendency for such service firms to deviate from the existing (customer-centric) schools of service quality definition and measurement. This becomes difficult to operationalise within the context of brand loyalty. This led the researchers to review the extant literature in the relevant subject areas with the aim of finding out whether there has been a shift in the definition of service quality for high-tech dependent service firms. Following this, a pilot study consisting one-on-one interviews and a field survey was conducted. The aim was to gain insight on the understanding of key technical managers of a telecoms operator (MTN) in Lagos, Nigeria. On the other hand, the field survey (of MTN customers) carried out was aimed to juxtapose customer perception, based on the findings in the literature, with the orientations of the managers. The results indicate a disconnect between managers’ orientations and the perception of their customers. While managers believe that their customers are loyal to their brand due to operational efficiency provided, customers indicate very high switch-over tendencies to the firm’s competitors irrespective of operational efficiency. Suggestions on how service quality can be operationalised for brand loyalty were given as well as areas requiring further research.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207