MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018720114 · doi:10.1002/cjas.65

A qualitative analysis of factors associated with user acceptance and rejection of a new workplace information system in the public sector: a conceptual model

2008· article· en· W2018720114 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jamal Ouadahi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual modelPerceptionKnowledge managementWork (physics)Public sectorPublic relationsPsychologyQuality (philosophy)Information systemConceptual frameworkBusinessApplied psychologyMarketingComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines the factors that lead employees to endorse or resist the introduction of a new information system (IS). Findings suggest that attitudes toward adopting IS are related to psychological characteristics of the potential adopters, including, open‐mindedness, self‐efficacy, interest in the information and communication technology, and time remaining before retirement. Also figuring prominently in influencing attitudes are the end‐users' perceptions and expectations with respect to project management, IS quality, IS usefulness, and its effects on organizational positions, work organization, performance, skills, jobs, and worker health. Finally, user attitudes also relate to features of change management practices, including leadership, training, support, recognition, communication, and participation. An integrative conceptual model of IS user adoption is proposed and suggestions for future research are offered. Copyright © 2008 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207