Graduate Students Report Strong Acceptance and Loyal Usage of Google Scholar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – To determine the frequency of graduate students’ Google Scholar usage, and the contributing factors to their adoption. The researchers also aimed to examine whether the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is applicable to graduate students’ acceptance of Google Scholar. Design – Web-based survey questionnaire. Setting – The survey was conducted over the internet through email invitations. Subjects – 1,114 graduate students enrolled at the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota. Methods – 9,998 graduate students were invited via email to participate in a study about their perceptions of Google Scholar in the fall of 2009. A follow-up email and a raffle of two $25 gift certificates were used to provide participation incentive. The survey measurements, which consisted of 53 items in 15 questions, were based on modifications to the validated TAM using measurements adopted by other studies using the same instrument. Each item was scored using five-point scales ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Because the TAM model is based on direct user experience, only responses from those who have used Google Scholar in the past were included in the data analysis. Main Results – The survey had a response rate of 11.4%, with 73% of the respondents reporting having used Google Scholar at least once before. However, only 45% of those who had used Google Scholar reported linking to full text articles through the customized library link “frequently or always.” On average, respondents found Google Scholar easy to use (M=4.09 out of 5) and access (M=3.86). They also perceived Google Scholar as a useful resource for their research (M=3.98), which enhanced their searching effectiveness (M=3.89). However, respondents were less enthusiastic when asked whether they often found what they were looking for using Google Scholar (M=3.33) or whether it had enough resources for their research (M=3.14). Nonetheless, most still felt they made the correct decision to use Google Scholar (M=3.94), even if their loyalty towards Google Scholar was limited (M=3.23). The researcher categorized survey measurements into 9 TAM-based variables and performed regression analysis (all with p
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".