An empirical analysis on the adoption of electronic banking in the financial institutes using structural, behavioral and contextual factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines contextual, structural and organizational factors, which can facilitate or slow down adoption of innovation in Electronic Banking in the financial Institutions. Threedimensional model co-structure, co-behavioral, contextual (3C) is used in this research. This schema is a logical model in the categories of models and many of concepts, events and organizational phenomena can be examined. Structural factors including type of the organization of institution, work distribution, preparing mobilization of resources and equipment and risk of decision-making sophistication influence on adoption of Electronic Banking. There are four contextual factors, which contribute in adoption of Electronic Banking including goals, strategies, culture and common norms. The five Behavioral Factors, which affect on electronic banking are connections and relations, skills and personal characters of employees, education, job satisfaction and banking work process. By studying the mentioned factors, we have realized that contextual factors plays important role on adoption of electronic Banking by employee and the behavioral and structural factors have minor impacts. The mentioned proposals are methods, which facilitate the adoption of electronic banking in the country.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".