Analyzing the role of social media marketing in changing customer experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media is becoming more and more popular as a medium for marketing and promotion. Banks, for example, have spent a substantial amount of time, efforts, as well as finances marketing their products. Nevertheless, figuring out how businesses may use social media marketing to reach customers and encourage them to remain loyal is really a challenge. Therefore, the study purpose is to identify as well as test the key sections of social media marketing that can anticipate improvements in customer experience. The conceptual framework was proposed using seven variables (performance expectancy, hedonic incentive, and habit) from the expanding Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), as well as interactivity, information quality, perceived relevance and purchase intention. The research data was gathered through 437 questionnaires from banks customers. The validity of the existing model and the strong impact of performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, interactivity, information quality, and perceived relevance on customer experience were significantly supported by the primary results of structural equation modeling (SEM). This research should give marketers with a lot of theoretically and practically recommendations on how to organize and conduct social media marketing effectively
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".