Cultural Differences and their Influence onTechnology Acceptance: An EmpiricalStudy of Taiwanese andCanadian Users
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
This thesis examines the cultural differences between Canada and Taiwan and their influence on technology acceptance. A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the topic of technology acceptance. This study aims to incorporate the element of national culture in the UTAUT model and draws a comparison between Taiwan and Canada. Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions scores, identified as Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity and Time Orientation, are compared to scores obtained by this study. Furthermore, the moderating effect that national culture has between Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Behavioral Intention is assessed. This study attempts to gain insight on how two different cultures may accept new technologies differently. The results obtained show that there is an observable difference between Taiwan and Canada when it comes to technology acceptance. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the cultural dimension scores obtained in this study are significantly different from those given by Hofstede’s study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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