The Development of the Higher Education Relationship Marketing Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several decades, higher education in Canada has expanded dramatically. Postsecondary institutions (PSIs) have struggled to both respond to this competitive environment, while simultaneously generating value for its core stakeholders – students – which align with its mission and vision. Comprehending the underlying relational dynamics between a student and their PSI will aid in improving retention rates, satisfaction levels, shared values, advocacy, loyalty, and efficiency overall. The current project will investigate what variables contribute to the creation of relational value between students and a PSI. Relationship marketing (RM) is the theoretical foundation of this study. RM is the principle of establishing, maintaining, and enhancing mutually successful relationships, where value is created for all parties. Previous research was adapted for application in a higher education context to explore the relationship between PSIs and students. Past research conducted has focused on a diverse range of relationships and industries using RM. Spectator affiliations to sports teams, students’ affiliation with varsity sports, and student affiliation with education are some examples of RM studies. Herein, we will explore the systematic relationship between a student and a PSI and how this relationship generates mutual value. To do so, we conducted a phenomenological study. This encompassed interviewing a minimum of 12 experts in higher education. The outcome of this study will be a refined higher education relationship marketing model (HERMM) and a suggested quantitative instrument that can be utilized by future researchers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.398 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".