Understanding competing application usage with the theory of planned behavior
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract User acceptance models such as the technology acceptance model, the theory of reasoned action, and the theory of planned behavior have been widely used to study a specific information system, a group of systems, or even computers in general. This study examines the usage of competitive information systems. It applies the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in a comparative frame of reference model (relative model) in which relative attitude, relative subjective norm, relative intention, and relative usage are examined. The study is set in the context of two instant messaging technologies. Based on a survey from 300 instant messaging users, the effects of attitude and subjective norm on intention in each model were different (i.e., when TPB is tested once for each application). This confirms that the behavioral model can show different effects for competitive products. In addition, correct competitive answers were given by the relative model; however, these may differ from the answers found from a single application model. The authors show the importance of studying the relative model for competitive products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it