Prediction of Bank Customer Potential Using Creative Marketing Based on Exploratory Data Analysis and Decision Tree Algorithm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today's bank marketing uses traditional methods, using standard and boring ads to target prospects. Of course, this can impact the banking process, reducing the number of potential banking customers. Banks need to think outside the box and apply creative marketing ideas to drive their profitable marketing development and marketing success potential. Most consumers consider banking a daily necessity, and it is best to avoid it. If they can take a creative approach to bank marketing, that idea can change. Especially when bank marketing integrates creative bank marketing ideas such as gamification, automation, chatbots, and rewards to encourage potential customers to use banking services, therefore; this study uses a decision tree algorithm with the best trash old decisions to perform a classification process on kaggle.com's bank marketing dataset. The classification process uses Python 3 to find the accuracy value of the decision tree algorithm calculation using K-Fold and scale data. This survey achieved classification results with 82% accuracy, 84% recognition, and 85% accuracy with recommendations and creative marketing solutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it