MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323048015 · doi:10.18280/mmep.100135

The Implementation of RFM Analysis to Customer Profiling Using K-Means Clustering

2023· article· en· W4323048015 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

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Pelita Harapan
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Cluster analysisComputer scienceBusinessArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vast development of information technology causes an explosion in the amount of data, yet the data must be processed to obtain useful insights.The use of data is needed to study the needs, behavior, and customer's value which are meant to build better relationships or what is often referred to Customer Relationship Management (CRM).As the company grows, data is getting abundant and more difficult to interact directly with customers and problems such as marketing campaigns that are less effective can result in losses if not immediately addressed.Therefore, customer segmentation was carried out using recency, frequency, and monetary (RFM) as variables and K-Means clustering by determining the number of clusters using the elbow method and silhouette score.Based on the analysis results, there are three types of clusters, categorized as best customers, may not lost customers, and average customers.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.228 · 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