MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Competitive Edge Using Big Data Analytics to Improve Customer Relationship Management

2024· article· en· W4400911295 on OpenAlexaff
Somanchi Hari Krishna, Kamaljeet Kaur, B Rajalakshmi, Sorabh Lakhanpal, Bipin Sule, Ippa Sumalatha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceCustomer relationship managementAnalyticsData scienceCompetitive advantageEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionData analysisKnowledge managementBusinessData miningMarketingDatabaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to handle e-commerce data for customer behaviour analysis, bigdata analytics is a developing technology that shows promise. The ability to analyse heterogeneous data in native format and at a comparatively low cost is one of big data's advantages. Data is being produced in various structures, or even unstructured, due to the rise of social media and personal digital assistants. The amount of processing time can be significantly reduced by using big data technologies, even though the data is enormous, by performing parallel processing. Metrics like consumer loyalty, affinity, transaction value, and likelihood of purchase can all be projected by machine learning algorithms. In addition to helping the shop adjust business strategy, this also helps them add inventory and run marketing. In this thesis study, two models are proposed: the Enhanced Model for Customer Behavior and Purchase Analysis and the Mouse Movement Pattern based Analysis of Customer Behavior (CBA-MMP). Two methods are used to classify the customer: the Decision Tree algorithm and Multi-Layer Neural Networks (MLNN). Decision trees employ metrics including gender, age, day segment, special occasion, total time spent on-site, and purchasing done or not done. Additionally, lowering processing times and increasing accuracy are the goals. Processing the input with a collection of hidden layers and an output layer is done using a multi-layer neural network. Every layer node has an activation function attached to it. Based on a comparison investigation, the suggested model yields a high accuracy rate with a reduced processing time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.098 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207