MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414045481 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.6.003

Factors affecting loyalty to student support services: a study of dormitory service quality at a university in Vietnam

2025· article· en· W4414045481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nguyen Van Tac, Duong Bich Tuyen, Nguyen Tran Trong Vinh, Nguyễn Văn Định

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyService qualityAffect (linguistics)Reliability (semiconductor)Structural equation modelingQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research objective is to determine the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction and loyalty to the Dormitory of Nam Can Tho University. The research uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. The research model is built to include service quality (reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, assurance, empathy), perceived price, and satisfaction, all affecting student loyalty. Using a non-probability convenience sampling method, the survey was conducted through Google Forms to collect data on students staying at the Dormitory of Nam Can Tho University. The results of the survey data analysis with 220 students were carried out through the steps of assessing the scale's reliability using Cronbach's Alpha, evaluating the Measurement Model and the Structural Equation Model. The analysis results determined that all three independent factors with decreasing impact levels affect student loyalty. Service quality and perceived price affect satisfaction. At the same time, satisfaction and service quality impact student loyalty. Based on the research, solutions are proposed to improve student 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)0.000
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207