MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082647613 · doi:10.1177/21582440251378022

Factors Influencing Students’ Satisfaction with Online Food Delivery Services: An Empirical Study

2025· article· en· W7082647613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentFood deliveryProduct (mathematics)Empirical researchService delivery frameworkStructural equation modelingConsumer behaviourService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the determinants of consumer satisfaction in Dubai’s rapidly expanding app-based food delivery sector, drawing on the theory of consumer behavior and analyzing data from 180 undergraduate students at Canadian University Dubai using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) from January to February 2024. We evaluated the effects of delivery service price, meal pricing, food quality, restaurant variety, e-service quality, delivery timing, product advertisements, and sales promotions. The sample represents mobile-first generations. The findings reveal that food price, restaurant food quality, restaurant variety, e-service quality, delivery time, product advertisements, and sales promotions all positively influence consumer satisfaction. However, delivery charges, delivery promotions, and online payment security had no significant impact on the satisfaction of this mobile-first generation. Thus, businesses should streamline delivery times and emphasize value through targeted marketing to mobile-first consumers, ensuring that delivery charges and payment security do not hinder consumer satisfaction. These findings may help inform the development of meal delivery applications designed to attract and retain students in this specific market segment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207