MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024011806

Professional Referral Lead Generation

2016· article· en· W7024011806 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralService (business)InterviewRevenueScope (computer science)Professional developmentRural area
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to investigate innovative lead generation strategies for professional service firms in both rural and urban communities through relationship marketing. The scope of this research was the Canadian legal industry with a focus on small law firms in urban areas of Ontario. Specifically, this paper explored the possibility law firms relying on referral marketing through the creation of reciprocal referral agreement with rural accounting firms. An empirical research study was conducted by interviewing rural accountants, rural business professionals, urban clients of accountants, and urban lawyers. The research suggested that videoconferencing software could allow both urban and rural professional service firms to meet the needs of their clients, irrespective of their geography. Furthermore, there was an opportunity for lawyers practicing in urban areas to receive client referrals from rural accountants and refer clients back to the rural accountant as a form of referral compensation to create a sustainable referral relationship. The findings from this research are generalizable to professional service firms generally and demonstrate that it is possible for urban firms to establish a reciprocal referral arrangement with rural firms to generate additional revenue through the use of videoconferencing. This article has been able to fill a gap in the relationship marketing literature of professional service firms by developing a strategic way of leveraging a professional service firm's relationship with its stakeholders in its referral markets domain.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.007

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207