Banking on Feedback: Text Analysis of Mobile Banking iOS and Google App Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of mobile banking (m-banking), especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, has reshaped the financial sector. This study analyzes consumer reviews of m-banking apps from five major Canadian banks, collected from Google Play and iOS App stores. Sentiment analysis and topic modeling classify reviews as positive, neutral, or negative, highlighting user preferences and areas for improvement. Data pre-processing was performed with NLTK, a Python language processing tool, and topic modeling used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). Sentiment analysis compared methods, with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) achieving 82\% accuracy for iOS reviews and Multinomial Naive Bayes 77\% for Google Play. Positive reviews praised usability, reliability, and features, while negative reviews identified login issues, glitches, and dissatisfaction with updates.This is the first study to analyze both iOS and Google Play m-banking app reviews, offering insights into app strengths and weaknesses. Findings underscore the importance of user-friendly designs, stable updates, and better customer service. Advanced text analytics provide actionable recommendations for improving user satisfaction and experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".