Interrelated Factors Influencing the Adoption Decision of AIS Applications by SMEs in Jordan
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
<p>This study aims to identify the main factors that either facilitating (motivating) or inhabiting the adoption decision of AIS by small –medium sized companies in Jordan. In order to accomplish the research objectives, a conceptual framework was designed. The conceptual framework includes three major interrelated factors: organizational, technological and environmental factors. The data for this research were collected through email survey with 101 respondents. The target respondents were the small-medium sized companies in Jordan and the key respondent approach was used. A group of twenty factors, employed as variables from the previous studies and models of adoption were listed and examined in a neutral manner, without pre-classifying them as barriers or incentives, through email surveys sent to key respondent in the SMEs. Respondents were asked to indicate how these factors influence their AIS adoption decisions. Furthermore, a comparison analysis has conducted to show how these factors are perceived differently among those who have adopted as AIS, those that will not adopt it all and those that might adopt it in the near future. The finding showed that only twelve of these factors were found significant, eight labeled as incentives and four labeled as barriers. However, the set cost factor was the only shared one perceived as a barrier among all groups. The results showed the three groups adopt perceive factors differently. The research has finalized with some theoretical and practical implications and recommendations.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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