MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Analysis of Influencing Factors and Promotion Strategy for the Use of Mobile Banking

2011· article· en· W1868965042 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huili Yao, Chunfang Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Mobile bankingMarketingBusinessMobile marketingPerceptionWelfare economicsRisk perceptionPolitical scienceHumanitiesAdvertisingBusiness administrationPsychologyEconomicsArtDigital marketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main factors that influence the mobile banking’ s promotion are specifically analyzed based on the three-factor theory, namely the external environmental factors, internal factors of consumers and marketing factors. It can come to a conclusion that culture, perception of risk, marketing factors are the three main factors that affect mobile banking’ s marketing. Then the effective countermeasures are put forward as well in the paper. Key words: Mobile banking; Consumer behaviour; MarketingResume: Les facteurs de canalisation qui influencent la promotion d'operations bancaires mobile sont specifiquement analyses bases sur la theorie de trois-facteur, a savoir les facteurs environnementaux externes, facteurs internes des consommateurs et facteurs de vente. Elle peut arriver a une conclusion que la culture, perception de risque, lancant des facteurs sur le marche sont les trois facteurs principaux qui affectent la gestion bancaire mobile. Alors les contre-mesures efficaces sont aussi bien proposes dans le papier. Mots cles: Operations bancaires mobiles; Comportement du consommateur; Commercialisation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.292
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207