MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182121381

Government to Citizen: Advocacy of Government On-line Systems and Their Acceptance among Citizens

2011· article· en· W2182121381 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maizatul Haizan Mahbob, Mohammed Zin Nordin, Ali Salman, Mohd Yusof Abdullah

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinnovation journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessService (business)Database transactionPublic relationsMarketingPublic administrationPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Government on-line systems under the e-service project were launched in 2000. The ongoing objectives are to improve internal government office efficiency as service delivery to its citizens. Since its launch ten years ago, the use of this service by the citizens has beens relatively low, especially on the transaction side. Mostly, citizens use e-services merely to check their Road Transport Department (JPJ) and Royal Police Malaysia (PDRM) traffic summonses, to take their driving tests, to check their electrical and telephone bills and to check compound and tax issues with the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL). Citizens’ use of the e-service, mainly to do routine checking more than to conduct transactions, could subsequently influence further expansion of e-service. These issues lead to form the objectives of the study: firstly, to examine the factors that influence the use of government’s e-service, and secondly, to measure the strength of influence among the variables. The results reveal that the crucial factors that influence the intentions and behavior of citizens in accepting government’s e-services are “attitude” and perceived “behavioral control,” while subjective “norm” is not as evident.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinnovation journalSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207