MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270494975 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n1p117

Predicting Consumer Intention to Use Mobile Payment Services: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam

2016· article· en· W2270494975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ninh Nguyen, Tuan Khanh Cao, Phuong Linh Dang, Hien Anh Thi Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile paymentVietnameseBusinessPaymentMarketingEmpirical evidenceConsumer behaviourEmpirical researchService (business)Service providerAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile payment has relative advantages compared to other payment methods, thus providing benefits for both consumers and the society. This study attempts to examine factors influencing consumer intention to use mobile payment services. Survey data are used to investigate the impact of consumers’ perceptions of mobile payment services and social influence on use intention. Empirical evidence from 489 Vietnamese consumers confirms a significant relationship between the factors and behavioral intention, and reveals that perceived trust is the strongest predictor of intention to use mobile payment services followed by perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, perceived behavioral control, perceived usefulness and subjective norm, respectively. The results contribute to the evolving literature, and suggest that mobile payment service providers should particularly focus on building up consumer trust, and making their services clear, understandable and easy to use. Future research directions for extending this study are also discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations74
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207