MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Claro Colombia Customer Experience Patterns: Sentiment Analysis

2025· article· W7127382629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juan Pablo Acosta Vasquez, Francy Rocío Castellanos Oviedo, Laura Valentina Garzón Arismendy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBusiness, Innovation, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentiment analysisReputationActive listeningQuality (philosophy)Quarter (Canadian coin)Service qualityService (business)Work (physics)Perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the second quarter of 2024, Claro Colombia positioned itself as the market leader in terms of user numbers, with more than 589,000 new ports. However, this growth has not been matched by an improvement in service perception. On social media, users continue to report high levels of dissatisfaction, with frequent complaints about service quality, customer service, and network stability. Today more than ever, social media is a direct reflection of the customer experience. Users not only share their experiences but also shape the opinions of others. Ignoring these voices can mean losing the public's trust; however, listening to them and analyzing them strategically can make a difference in customer relationships. This work seeks precisely that: to understand what Claro Colombia users feel and think through the analysis of their comments on platforms such as Facebook, Threads and X. Applying artificial intelligence and sentiment analysis techniques, patterns and trends will be identified that allow generating useful information to make decisions aimed at improving the service, strengthening the brand's reputation and, above all, better connecting with the real needs of users. During the second quarter of 2024, Claro Colombia positioned itself as the market leader in terms of the number of users, with more than 589,000 new portings. However, this growth has not been accompanied by an improvement in the perception of the service. On social media, users continue to report high levels of dissatisfaction, with frequent complaints about the quality of service, customer service, and network stability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 topicBusiness, Innovation, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207