MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393979241 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v8i3.2442

Research on the Impact of Fintech on Customer Satisfaction in Gurgaon’s Banking Sector

2022· article· en· W4393979241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ram Bajaj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCustomer satisfactionMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global economy has evolved into a dynamic, digital landscape, characterized by globalization, digitalization, government reforms, and heightened competition. In this context, businesses are compelled to reassess their strategies, policies, products, and services. Technology has played a pivotal role in revolutionizing economies worldwide, bridging existing gaps among developed, developing, and under-developed nations. Among sectors, banking stands out as a key provider of financial assistance and services to various industries. Given the centrality of customer satisfaction in market dynamics, banks must continually innovate their business models to enhance and sustain customer satisfaction levels. FinTech emerges as a crucial enabler in this pursuit. This study aims to analyze the role of FinTech and its impact on customer satisfaction within the banking sector of Pune city. Through a structured questionnaire administered to 100 respondents in Pune, employing non-probabilistic convenient sampling, this research explores the socio-demographic profile of participants and assesses their satisfaction levels with banking services. Utilizing frequency distribution analysis, the study sheds light on the significance of FinTech in fostering sustainable business growth within the Indian banking landscape. 

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.052 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207