MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140799558 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1266

Understanding e-learning adoption in Brazil: Major determinants and gender effects

2012· article· en· W2140799558 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

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsModerationStructural equation modelingPsychologyTechnology acceptance modelContext (archaeology)UsabilitySocial psychologySocial influenceConstruct (python library)GeneralizationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The objective of this study is to examine factors influencing e-learning adoption and the moderating role of gender. This study extends the technology acceptance model (TAM) by adding attitude and social interaction. The new construct of social interaction is applied to the South American context. Gender effects on e-learning adoption from educators’ perspectives have seldom been explored. The data collection takes place in three major Brazilian universities. In total, 446 faculty members responded to the questionnaire. Our structural equation modeling reveals that ease of use and perceived usefulness are significant antecedents of attitude, which in turn affects intention. However, unlike the original TAM, perceived usefulness is not a direct driver of intention. In terms of moderation, gender affects three relationships: (1) ease of use –› perceived usefulness; (2) perceived usefulness –› attitude, and (3) intention –› actual behavior. The analysis is carried out in a single country; thus, caution should be taken in generalization of the results. The findings will help academics, educators, and policy makers to better understand the mechanism of e-learning adoption in Brazil. <br /><br /></p><p> </p>

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.421
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.117 · 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