MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315618752 · doi:10.18280/isi.270615

Evaluation Model and Influencing Factors of Consumer Satisfaction with E-Commerce Platform

2022· article· en· W4315618752 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicE-commerce and Technology Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoomE-commerceConsumer satisfactionCompetition (biology)BusinessQuality (philosophy)Service qualityService (business)MarketingComputer scienceAdvertisingEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The boom of online shopping has intensified the competition between e-commerce platforms. To enhance its service quality, every e-commerce website is taking measures to improve shopping experience and consumer satisfaction. However, the existing studies on consumer satisfaction with e-commerce platform fail to fully consider consumer feedbacks, such as sharing, forwarding, and reviewing. Thus, this paper explores the evaluation model and influencing factors of consumer satisfaction with e-commerce platform. Firstly, the behavior features of similar consumers were clustered, and evaluation indices were referred to divide the factors affecting the consumer satisfaction with e-commerce platform into different layers. In addition, a consumer satisfaction evaluation model was constructed based on attention mechanism, and proved effective through experiments.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.207 · 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