MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986685383 · doi:10.4236/ti.2013.41004

Information Communication Technology (ICT) Utilization in Private Universities in Uganda: Exploring Strategies to Improve. A Case of Uganda Christian University

2013· article· en· W1986685383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Kyakulumbye, Maurice Olobo, Vincent Kisenyi

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyDescriptive statisticsUsabilityGovernment (linguistics)Bivariate analysisBusinessMarketingRegression analysisPsychologyKnowledge managementStatisticsPolitical scienceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was an extension of a similar study by [1] conducted among local government staff in Uganda and was extended among staff at Uganda Christian University. A total of 108 respondents out of the accessible 130 representing 83.0% response rate was realized after administering the study instruments over a period of two (2) weeks. Of the 108 respondents, 70.4% constituted staff in administration, 8.0% heads of sections and 21.6% academic staff. Data was analyzed using different statistical techniques which included descriptive statistics, mainly mean and standard deviation, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient to establish the relationships between variables and multiple regression analysis to establish causal influence of factors on ICT utilization. At bivariate level, organizational support systems, ICT infrastructure and users’ perceptions had a strong relationship on ICT utilization. Multiple regression analysis revealed that only user perceptions (perceived ease of use) and user knowledge and skills had a significant causal influence on ICT utilization. The researcher Recommended that UCU strategic management cater for personnel ICT capacity building to improve their skills and therefore enhance ICT usability. Further research may consider segmenting staff by faculties and study how utilization levels differ using ANOVA. A comparative study can also be undertaken to assess UCU and any other private university.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207