MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162988957 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2021.4.001

The effect of intangible service quality on retailing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia

2021· article· en· W3162988957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zyad M. Alzaydi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlbaha University
KeywordsService qualityBusinessStructural equation modelingMarketingService (business)Quality (philosophy)EmpathyCustomer satisfactionRisk perceptionOnline and offlinePerceptionPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate how online to offline service quality influences the customer’s perceived risk and trust towards the retailer and how these factors impact customer satisfaction and intention to revisit. The present study incorporates intangible service quality offline aspects, such as empathy, and online aspects, such as mobility. The objective of the research is to examine the integration of online to offline service quality models in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic, using key aspects of offline, online and mobile service quality. The data was collected using an online survey of 289 respondents from Saudi Arabia. The analysis was conducted using partial least square and structural equation modelling. This study finds that the intangibility of service quality has a positive impact on perceived trust; however, the direct relationship between the intangibility of service quality and perceived risk is not supported. The study’s results support the hypothesis that customer satisfaction has a positive impact on the intention to revisit and that received trust positively affects satisfaction. The results have implications for service managers in the retailing and e-commerce sectors and offer a better understanding of how different channels of service affect customers’ perceptions and intentions to revisit.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207