MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156100393 · doi:10.1142/s0219622011004543

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING INTERNET/E-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES ADOPTION BY SMES IN CANADA

2011· article· en· W2156100393 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Princely Ifinedo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCape Breton University
KeywordsBusinessSmall and medium-sized enterprisesMarketingRevenueThe InternetGovernment (linguistics)Industrial organizationAppealKnowledge managementComputer scienceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) around the world engage in e-commerce and e-business to support business operations as well as to enhance revenue generation from nontraditional sources. Internet and e-business technologies (IEBT) are the pillars of e-commerce and e-business. Despite the universal appeal of IEBT, it has been reported that the adoption of such technologies by SMEs is influenced by contextual imperatives. The objective of this research is to investigate factors impacting the adoption of IEBT in SMEs based in the Maritime region of Canada. A research model based on the diffusion of innovation (DIT) and the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) frameworks was used to guide the discourse. Such factors as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, management support, organizational readiness, external pressure, and government support were used to develop relevant hypotheses. Questionnaires were mailed to key informants in SMEs. Data analysis was performed using the partial least squares (PLS) technique. Predictions related to relative advantage, management support, and competition's pressure were confirmed. The study did not support the constructs of compatibility, complexity, government support, customers' and partners' pressures as significant predictors of IEBT adoption by the SMEs in the region.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations272
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information Technology & Decision MakingSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207