MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380449805 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.5.008

The impact of e-banking service quality on the sustainable customer satisfaction: Evidence from the Saudi Arabia commercial banking sector

2023· article· en· W4380449805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammed Alkhaibari, Abbas N. Albarq, Musaddag Elrayah, Mohamed A. Moustafa, M Ghaleb, Amani Abba

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Faisal University
KeywordsBusinessCustomer satisfactionService qualityContext (archaeology)MarketingRetail bankingSample (material)Competitive advantageQuality (philosophy)Service (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The banking sector around the globe has witnessed a huge development in its services and products. The electronic banking services are considered as a competitive advantage for the banking sector. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of e-banking service quality on customer satisfaction in the context of Saudi Arabian commercial banks. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used in the study. A sample of 308 customers from the banking sector participated in this study. The researchers have developed a self-structured questionnaire to collect the relevant data. In addition, secondary data was gathered from published sources, including websites, journal papers, and publications of the chosen commercial banks. The findings of this study show that the eight service quality dimensions; reliability, transactional efficiency, customer support, service security, ease of use, performance, satisfaction with service quality and service content have a significant impact on the level of user's satisfaction with e-banking in the Saudi Arabian commercial banks.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207