MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053689752 · doi:10.1145/782896.782908

Exploring user's emotional relationships with IT products

2003· article· en· W2053689752 on OpenAlexaff
Poh Wah Khong, Jing Pu Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLISRELStructural equation modelingAntecedent (behavioral psychology)Reliability (semiconductor)Product (mathematics)Customer satisfactionComputer scienceTest (biology)User satisfactionService (business)PsychologyKnowledge managementMarketingHuman–computer interactionSocial psychologyMathematicsBusinessMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decades of ergonomics research change the consumers' criteria by which they value and choose an IT product. Compared with the emphasis placed on new functions, reliability, and good after-service in past, emotional response to products has become an important user requirement to improve the customer acceptance in the market. This study develops a model and validates two specific antecedent variables-computer experience and capability-which are hypothesized to be fundamental determinants of users' emotional response to IT products usage. Adding four more variables-such as attitude, belief, end user satisfaction and impact-test the parsimony of the model further. The research data were derived from a questionnaire survey circulated to 618 people in the worldwide and LISREL, a technique for modeling structural equation systems, was used to analyze the responses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207