MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084404505 · doi:10.31538/iijse.v8i3.8769

The Effect of Enduring Service Intensifiers, Perceived Service Alternatives, and Self-Perceived Roles on the Level of Customer Satisfaction Using the Importance Performance Analysis Method (Case Study of Bank Sumut Syariah KC. Medan)

2025· article· en· W7084404505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasites and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Sample (material)Customer satisfactionQuarter (Canadian coin)Service qualityTest (biology)PopulationValue (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the relationship and influence of Enduring Service Intensifiers, Perceived Service Alternatives, Self-Perceived Roles on the Level of Consumer Satisfaction using the importance performance analysis method (case study of Bank Sumut Syariah Kc. Medan). The type of research used in this study is quantitative research. The object of this research was conducted at Bank Sumut Syariah branch office Jl Imam Bonjol Medan. The population used in this study were Bank Sumut Syariah customers who saved at the bank in the first quarter of 2023, as many as 2,340 people. The sample in this study was 96 people. Data collection techniques used multiple linear analysis with the help of the SPSS program version 23.0. Based on the results of the partial hypothesis test (t-test), it shows that the variables Enduring Service Intensifiers, Perceived Service Alternatives, Self Perceives Roles have a significance value of <0.05, which means that the variables Enduring Service Intensifiers, Perceived Service Alternatives, Self Perceives Roles have a positive and significant influence on increasing consumer satisfaction, so that the hypothesis in this study is accepted.

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)0.002
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 score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicParasites and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207