MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042063392 · doi:10.12735/jotr.v2i1p01

Which Factors Affect Passengers' Intention to Use the Automated Immigration Clearance System (e-Gate)?

2015· article· en· W2042063392 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheng-Hua Yang, Alex Y. L. Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tourism and Recreation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)ImmigrationPsychologyBusinessSocial psychologyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study discusses the factors that affect passengers’ intent to use automated immigration clearance system (e-gate) and the corresponding causal relationship. Based on the Technology Acceptance Model, we constructed a model by considering the need for personal interaction and perceived risk, designed questionnaires by focus group discussions and observed and compared passengers’ behaviour by Structural Equation Modeling and Hierarchical Regression to identify several important issues. Results indicated that (1) for experienced users, use attitude and perceived ease of use are the key factors with positive effects on use intention; (2) for inexperienced users, the need for personal interaction negatively influences use intention, and perceived usefulness has little effect on use intention; and (3) ‘experience’ has a significant main effect and moderator effect on the influences of personal interaction and perceived risk on use intention. These results suggest the following important implications: enhanced experience, inductive promotional strategies, positive feedback loop, provide options for immigration examination stamps, and reach a balance between control and facilitation.

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)0.003
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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tourism and RecreationSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207