MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Fresh Look on Determinants of Online Repurchase Intention

2022· book-chapter· en· W4296375573 on OpenAlexaff
Ir. Jagjeet Singh Sarban Singh, Omkar Dastane, Herman Fassou Haba

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingIntensionCredibilityMarketingService qualitySample (material)BusinessQuality (philosophy)AdvertisingPsychologyService (business)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The e-commerce industry is continuously evolving and attained exponential growth as a result of the COVID 19-pandemic and the consequent lockdown. This has also generated possible changes in online consumer preferences. Although several studies have identified factors affecting online repurchase intention (ORI), a fresh look is required to identify key determinants of ORI. Thus, the current study, through extensive literature review, proposes and investigates such ORI determinants. Explanatory design with quantitative research method is used, and empirical data is collected using a self-administered e-questionnaire. A sample of 243 responses were collected from online consumers using snowball sampling. The data were then analyzed using AMOS 24 through series of statistical analysis. The findings show that web quality, service quality, credibility are key determinants of online repurchase intension. Electronic word of mouth (E-WoM) and customer relationship management (CRM) demonstrated insignificant impact on ORI. The results also identify perceived web quality as a factor with strongest impact on ORI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in logistics, operations, and management science book seriesSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207