An Integrated Expert User with End User in Technology Acceptance Model for Actual Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<span>Effective evaluation is necessary in order to ensure systems adequately meet the requirements and information processing needs of the users and scope of the system. Technology acceptance model is one of the most popular and effective models for evaluation. A number of studies have proposed evaluation frameworks to aid in evaluation work. The end users for evaluation the acceptance of new technology or system have a lack of knowledge to examine and evaluate some features in the new technology/system. This will give a fake evaluation results of the new technology acceptance. This paper proposes a novel evaluation model to evaluate user acceptance of software and system technology by modifying the dimensions of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and added additional success dimensions for expert users. The proposed model has been validated by an empirical study based on a questionnaire. The results indicated that the expert users have a strong significant influence to help in evaluation and pay attention to some features that end users have lack of knowledge to evaluate it.</span>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it