MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157397932 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n2p13

Testing Control, Innovation and Enjoy as External Variables to the Technology Acceptance Model in a North American French Banking Environment

2012· article· en· W2157397932 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Pierre Lévy Mangin, Normand Bourgault, Juan A. Moriano, Mario Guerrero

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent variableStructural equation modelingTechnology acceptance modelExternal variableUsabilityControl (management)BusinessMarketingControl variableVariable (mathematics)Latent class modelLatent variable modelVariablesFinancial servicesCompetition (biology)EconometricsComputer scienceEconomicsManagementMathematicsFinanceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays banks are enhancing major objectives to challenge competition, competitiveness and growth. To comply with these new objectives they have developed new innovative channels of contacts and distribution of financial services to customers relying on the net: ‘the Internet channel’. Based on the ‘Technology Acceptance Model’ this research will evaluate the impact of external latent variables ‘Control’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Enjoy’ on the internal TAM model latent variables ‘Ease of Use’, ‘Perceived Usefulness’, ‘Attitude towards Using’ and ‘Intention to Use’ in a North American French Banking Environment. Results show a well structured model for on-line banking financial services that complies pretty well with all major criteria of structural equation modeling norms. The ‘Control’ latent variable has a significant effect on the TAM model latent variables ‘Ease of Use and ‘Attitude towards Using’ while ‘Innovation’ has a sole impact on ‘Intention to Use’. The ‘Enjoy’ latent variable has substantial impacts on ‘Ease of Use’, ‘Attitude towards Using’ and ‘Intention to Use’.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207