MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386038896 · doi:10.1109/icebe55470.2022.00038

An approach to evaluate customer satisfaction and loyalty using soft skills and logistics factors

2022· article· en· W4386038896 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Faed, Omar Khadeer Hussain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer satisfactionLoyalty business modelLoyaltyMarketingBusinessPsychologyService quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we mainly focused on the most significant elements applied to enhance productivity regarding satisfaction and loyalty of the customers, especially in the field logistics industry. The current manuscript thinks outside the box, defines and reviews the critical concepts, and tests models to evaluate the relationship among the elements with customer satisfaction and loyalty in the logistics industry. In this study, we concluded that soft skills and their elements are paramount to customer satisfaction and loyalty of existing and future customers. Also, logistics elements and their influence on customer satisfaction and loyalty will be discussed throughout the paper. To elicit feedback from our respondents, we benefited from survey questionnaires that the results obtained from 100 participants. We then utilized correlation, regression, and ANOVA to test the assumptions and conduct quantitative analysis. The factors of leadership, emotional intelligence, performance, and logistics on the concepts of customer satisfaction and loyalty were evaluated and analyzed to understand how each of these prudent elements may influence customer satisfaction and loyalty so that we can have a core competency. The findings depict a harmonious correlation between soft skills and customer satisfaction and loyalty, but there was not enough correlation between logistics and loyalty. In addition, we noted that the factors mentioned earlier are positively associated with customer satisfaction and loyalty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207