MétaCan
Menu
← all works

Intentions to Use Information Technologies

2006· article· en· 180 citations· W2060732635 on OpenAlex· 10.4018/joeuc.2006070102

Why is this work in the frame?

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

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
none
Consensus categories
none
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
Genre
Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score
0.128
Threshold uncertainty score
0.296
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread
0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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

Abstract

An integrative model explaining intentions to use an information technology is proposed. The primary objective is to obtain a clearer picture of how intentions are formed, and draws on previous research such as the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989) and the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (Taylor and Todd, 1995a). The conceptual model was tested using questionnaire responses from 189 subjects, measured at two time periods approximately two months apart. The results generally supported the hypothesized relationships, and revealed strong influences of both personal innovativeness and computer self-efficacy.

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.

The record

Venue
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing
Topic
Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Field
Decision Sciences
Canadian institutions
Western University
Funders
not available
Keywords
Technology acceptance modelConceptual modelTheory of planned behaviorInformation technologyPsychologyKnowledge managementSocial psychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceUsabilityArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interaction
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes