MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170175911 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2013.02.014

An empirical study on different factors influencing information technology adoption for auditing purposes: A case study of a banking organization

2013· article· en· W2170175911 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taghavi Mehdi, Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard, Younes Pourmoradi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEmpirical researchAuditKnowledge managementInformation technologyAccountingProcess managementComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this survey, we have investigated whether an easy and comprehensive information technology (IT) infrastructure could contribute on auditing system in Iranian business society. The survey designs and distributes a questionnaire based on technology adoption method (TAM) among employees of bank Melli Iran who participated in our survey in Likert scale and using t-student and Kruskal-Wallis test examined different hypotheses. The results of our survey have indicated that there was a relationship between a good perception in usefulness of IT implementation and accepting recent advances of IT and auditors with good perception on IT are able to take advantage of recent advances of IT in their auditing skills. In addition, our survey has concluded that ease of IT implementation could create motivation among auditors to automate their traditional skills. While educational background played an important role on our survey, age and job experience did not have any impact on our survey.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207