E-shopping: An Analysis of the Uses and Gratifications Theory
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
The Internet has experienced an exponential growth in the number of users and has created enormous increases in its marketing and communication applications during a considerably short period of time. Although both scholars and practitioners have jointly acknowledged the capabilities of the Internet as a marketing tool that offers great potentials and advantages, there remains a scarcity of knowledge pertaining to the motivations for using the Internet and associated online consumer behaviours in more web-specific scenarios. The uses and gratifications theory (U&G) provides a theoretical grounding and an avenue to further understand consumers’ attitude and intention of using the Internet as a shopping channel from a media perspective. While most of the studies done on the U&G in the Internet are situated in American and European contexts, this paper considers the U&G structure of online shoppers in the Asian context (more specifically, in Malaysia). More specifically, this study attempts to shed some light on how consumers form their attitude and online shopping intention based on the uses and gratifications structure to the existing literature and managerial implications for entrepreneurs and marketers of electronic businesses on how best to serve and attract consumers to shop online via the management of online shopping technologies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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