MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065729040

Evaluating the Use of Twitter in Gauging the Effects of a Transit Service Intervention on Customer Satisfaction

2021· dissertation· W7065729040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexiconCustomer satisfactionReliability (semiconductor)Sentiment analysisService qualityQuality (philosophy)Intervention (counseling)Service (business)Customer service
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the prominence of customer satisfaction in decision making, transit agencies are shifting focus from using operational-based measures only to incorporating customer-oriented metrics. This study expanded on utilizing Twitter as a new source to gauge the opinions of riders by developing a novel transit-specific sentiment lexicon to enhance the accuracy of the sentiment analyses. This study also manually investigated the applicability of Twitter by assessing the impact of an intervention - the introduction of Calgary Transit's MAX routes- on customer satisfaction for several service quality attributes. Additionally, the study analyzed the relationship between the perception of users and the performance of vehicles for a commonly used reliability measure, on-time performance. The developed sentiment lexicon improved the accuracy and F-1 score compared to generic sentiment lexicons. Furthermore, the analysis showed a similar trend between customer-oriented measures obtained from Twitter and operational measures related to on-time performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207