Influence of Customer Perception Factors on AI-Enabled Customer Experience in the Ecuadorian Banking Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviews the relationship between customer perception factors and AI-enabled customer experience in the Ecuadorian banking industry. The study employs a self-designed online questionnaire with five factors for customer perception (convenience in use, personalization, trust, customer loyalty, and customer satisfaction) and two categories for AI-enabled customer experience (AI-hedonic customer experience and AI-recognition customer service). The final valid dataset consisted of 226 questionnaires. The data analysis and the hypotheses tests were conducted using SPSS 26 and structural equation modeling, respectively. The main findings displayed that all five customer perception factors (individual and joint effect) have a positive and significant effect (at least at the 5% level) on AI-enabled customer experience, AI-hedonic customer experience, and AI-recognition customer service in the Ecuadorian banking industry. Study results are aligned with previous findings from other countries, particularly the banking environment in the United Kingdom, Canada, Nigeria, and Vietnam. The AI techniques involved in the financial sector increase the valuation of customer experience due to AI algorithms recollecting, processing, and analyzing customer behavior. This study contributes a complete statistical and econometric model for determinants of AI-enabled customer experience. The main limitations of the study are that, in the analysis of the most demanded AI financial services, not all services and products are included and the inexistence of a customer perception index. For upcoming research, the authors recommend performing a longitudinal study using quantitative data to measure the effect of AI-enabled customer experience on the Ecuadorian banks’ performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".