MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340283042

Review on the Implementation of Mobile Commerce in Malaysia

2008· article· en· W2340283042 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chai Lee Goi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile commerceComputer scienceGovernment (linguistics)TelecommunicationsBusiness modelService providerService (business)BusinessWorld Wide WebMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malaysia is the second highest mobile penetration in South East Asia after Singapore. Although M-Commerce still at infancy stage, Malaysia has already embarked on the adoption of M-Commerce. As the communications and multimedia industry evolves towards convergence, licences under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are formulated to be both technology and service neutral. This creates opportunities for expansion into the industry particularly in the area of applications service providers and provides for a more effective utilisation of network infrastructure. To help future applications and technologies handle M-Commerce, Varshney and Vetter (2002) proposed four levels of M-Commerce framework: M-Commerce applications, user infrastructure, middleware, and network infrastructure. Mohd and Osman (2005) have adapting this model into M-Commerce applications in Malaysia. M-Commerce does have a bright future in Malaysia. To achieve this objective, mobile users expect an improvement in charges access fee, network quality, accessibility and speed. Other issues need to be considered are security and customer customisation. With government support, M-Commerce in Malaysia has a very promising future and moves forward in sectors that are clearly going to be the engines of growth worldwide over the next few years.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207