MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411656765 · doi:10.51847/djqga5i2kz

10.51847/DjQga5I2kZ

2000· article· en· W4411656765 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrioritizationBusinessIdentification (biology)CementOperations managementMarketingEngineeringProcess managementGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to identify and rank the key elements of success in customer relationship management (CRM) in Cement Company of Sistan and baluchestan province.For that purpose, considering four aspects of human element, appropriate organization of communication networks, technology, and focus on key customers, several standardized and native hybrid models have been used and a questionnaire with Cronbach's alpha of 0.896 was designed and distributed.The questionnaire is consisted of 46 items.This is an applied study, and from perspective of data collection and conclusion it is a survey research; and from analytical point of view, it is a correlational study.The statistical population is consisted of 288 people, which includes 64 employees and 224 customers, who have been selected using stratified random sampling during the time period from February 20 th to August 23 rd of 2014.To analyze the data descriptive and inferential statistics methods have been used.The results of Friedman's test indicate that according to respondents (employees and customers), the key elements of success in customer relationship management are technology, appropriate organization of communication networks, human factor, and focus on key customers, respectively.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9950.993

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.170 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207