MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388976520 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v16n12p1

Body Language of Sellers and Its Impact on Customer Loyalty

2023· article· en· W4388976520 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed R. Al-Owaidi, Özgür Çengel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyLoyalty business modelSample (material)Statistical analysisDescriptive statisticsMarketingPsychologyAdvertisingPerspective (graphical)BusinessStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceService (business)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to ascertain, from the perspective of a sample of shoppers at significant commercial shopping centers in the city of Babylon, Iraq, the effects of sellers' body language, as expressed by its five dimensions (body posture, smile, physical appearance, eye contact, and personal space), on customer loyalty. The study data was collected using a questionnaire and an analytical method known as descriptive analysis was employed to achieve the study's goals. The study sample received 60 electronic surveys via social networking sites, 50 of which were suitable for statistical analysis, then utilizing the statistical program (SPSS), a number of statistical tests were used to assess the data. According to the study's findings, there is a favorable correlation between the five components of body language and customer loyalty. The results also showed that there are no statistical. differences in customer loyalty due to demographic factors (gender and educational level) and the presence of fundamental differences depending on the age factor. The researcher finally Providing a number of recommendations to researchers on the one hand regarding future studies and to commercial center owners on the other hand to gain customer loyalty and retain them.

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)0.000
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 score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207