MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167059005 · doi:10.58729/1941-6687.1216

Timeline of Initial Perceptions and Adoption of e-Business Among Quebec Forestry Sector SMEs

2014· article· en· W2167059005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fathen Jabeur, Muhammad Mohiuddin, Égide Karuranga

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the IIMA · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessTimelineMetropolitan areaCompetitive advantageSmall and medium-sized enterprisesMarketingSmall businessFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present business environment is demanding and has forced companies to use information technology (IT) to remain competitive. E-business capabilities are currently one of the most salient factors that offer competitive advantage for most firms. This paper examines the evolution of the adoption of e-business practices between 2002 and 2009 from perception to actual adoption by small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in the forestry sector in Quebec, Canada. A binary logistic regression analysis of survey data demonstrated the low rate of adoption of these technologies in this group. This research found that while firm size is the most influential factor for e-business solution adopters, location is also a vital factor. Firms in metropolitan areas adopt e-business solutions faster and in higher volume than firms do in rural areas. Thus, this paper highlights those factors that can influence the adoption of e-business practices in Quebec forestry-sector SMEs.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the IIMASame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207