MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W842845811

What makes customers willing to recommend a retailer - the study on roots of positive Net Promoter Score index

2014· article· en· W842845811 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paweł Korneta

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)Set (abstract data type)Perspective (graphical)PerceptionKey (lock)BusinessMarketingComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Net Promoter Score index (NPS index) is examined from customers perspective. The statistical analysis of NPS index obtained for different retailers by customers survey is presented. The correlation coefficients between NPS index and a set of criteria are given and the key drivers of NPS index are determined. It is shown that the most important factor in the creation of positive NPS index is the trust, while perception of the low price is less influential. The direction in which retailers should move with their communication and in-store activities is suggested. JEL Classification Code: M310.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207