MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023618847 · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2004100102

Testing the Technology-to-Performance Chain Model

2004· article· en· W2023618847 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational and End User Computing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Predictive powerComputer scienceTurnoverInformation technologyTechnology acceptance modelKnowledge managementUsabilityHuman–computer interactionManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goodhue and Thompson proposed the technology-to-performance chain (TPC) model in 1995 to help end users and organizations understand and make more effective use of information technology. The TPC model combines insights from research on user attitudes as predictors of utilization and insights from research on task-technology fit as a predictor of performance. In this article, the TPC model was tested in two settings - voluntary use and mandatory use. In both settings, strong support was found for the impact of task-technology fit on performance, as well as on attitudes and beliefs about use. Social norms also had a significant impact on utilization in the mandatory use setting. Beliefs about use only had a significant impact on utilization in the voluntary use setting. Overall, the results found support for the predictive power of the TPC model; however, the results show that the relationships among the constructs in the model will vary depending on if the users have a choice to use the system or not.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.258 · 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