MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229830900 · doi:10.4018/9781931777087.ch006

Customer Loyalty and Electronic Banking

2011· book-chapter· en· W4229830900 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Tomiuk, Alain Pinsonneault

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessLoyaltyElectronic bankingLoyalty business modelCommerceMarketingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebThe InternetService quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a conceptual framework that helps to better understand and assess the impacts of information technology on customer loyalty in retail banking. To do so, we define the concept of customer loyalty and identify its antecedents. A conceptual framework describing the impacts of information technology on loyalty is developed based on the literature in marketing, social psychology, and communication. The framework suggests that electronic banking might have different effects on loyalty depending on the type of customer. Research in social psychology indicates that customers can be either communally-oriented or exchange-oriented. Loyalty is thus likely to be generated differently in each case: for communally-oriented customer loyalty is likely to be generated based on social and personal interactions, whereas for exchange-oriented customers, loyalty is enhanced by service efficiency and reliability. Because it reduces the amount of face-to-face interactions customers have with bank personnel, electronic banking is likely to lead to lower levels of loyalty for communally-oriented customers and to higher levels of loyalty for exchange-oriented customers.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.175 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207