MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409573363 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-023

A Study of the Relationship between Sensory Marketing Strategies and Customer Loyalty in Experiential Retail Environments

2025· article· en· W4409573363 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaodong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingBusinessExperiential learningLoyalty business modelLoyaltySensory systemPsychologyService qualityService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accompanied by the increasing consumer quality and the exploration of enterprises centered on user experience, the new retail model has emerged, and the emerging retail model also plays an important role in enhancing customer loyalty. This paper establishes an experiential sensory marketing model by combining perceptual theory and emerging technology from the basic features of the new retail model. Multiple linear regression model is used to study the influence of experiential sensory marketing mode on customer loyalty, and the correlation coefficient is used to analyze the correlation between the two. The correlation coefficients between the experiential sensory marketing model and customer loyalty range from 0.457 to 0.669, which is a moderate correlation. For every 1 percentage point increase in experiential sensory marketing mode, there is a significant increase of 0.647 percentage points in customer loyalty, and the average score value of customer attention under experiential sensory marketing strategy is 4.31 points. The sensory marketing strategy in experiential retail environment needs to improve the marketing standardization system, relying on professional service platform to improve the customer’s emotional experience, and then enhance customer 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207