MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117416987 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v3n1p128

Factors that Influence Customers’ Buying Intention on Shopping Online

2011· article· en· W2117416987 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of reasoned actionUsabilityTechnology acceptance modelNormativePsychologyThe InternetMarketingTheory of planned behaviorNormative social influenceBusinessAdvertisingSocial psychologyControl (management)Computer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On-line commerce through Internet is gaining attention from students today. The aim of this research is to studythe factors influencing student’s buying intention through internet shopping in an institution of higher learning inMalaysia. Several factors such as usefulness, ease of use, compatibility, privacy, security, normative-beliefs andattitude that influence student’s buying intention were analyzed. Respondents who were selected are studying ina public institution of higher learning in Penang, Malaysia. Based on theory of reasoned action (TRA), thetechnology acceptance model (TAM) concluded that there are two salient beliefs which are ease of use andusefulness. This theory has been applied on the study to adopt technology user different and has been emerged asa model in investigation to increase predictive power. Such theory was used in this study to explain students’buying intention on-line. Besides the ease of use and usefulness, others factors such as: compatibility, privacy,security, normative beliefs and self-efficacy are utilized at this TAM. The results support seven hypotheses fromnine. Compatibility, usefulness, ease of use and security has been found to be important predictors towardattitude in on-line shopping.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.363
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.087 · 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