Scientific mapping for customer lifetime value research in organizations using cluster analysis method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to analyze and map international scientific publications related to Customer Lifetime Value (CLTV). This study adopts an interpretive paradigm and employs a descriptive approach using a systematic review method. By utilizing specific search terms in the Web of Science database, covering the period from 1985 to 2024, and after thorough screening and qualitative assessment of the studies, the final analysis was conducted on 639 articles. An in-depth examination of the selected articles revealed a notable increase in international research in this field, particularly during the last twenty years. However, there have been periods of decreased research activity in years such as 2008, 2017, and 2023. The primary focus of this research has been on customer lifetime value and customer segmentation, with a significant association to the keyword "data mining," highlighting the importance of this technique in the discipline. Moreover, it was found that countries like Iran, Canada, and Turkey have lower average citation rates, whereas the United States, France, and Germany exhibit higher average citation rates. This suggests different patterns of co-authorship among these countries. By examining the most and least productive countries and researchers through scientometrics, new research opportunities in the field of customer lifetime value can be identified, providing insights for Iranian researchers to enhance the visibility of their findings on an international scale.
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 | 0.022 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.082 | 0.072 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".