MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598188041

E-commerce Growth and Mobile Devices

2014· dissertation· en· W2598188041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruiqi Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile commerceComputer scienceBusinessData scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As with ordinary in-store shopping, product characteristics affect an individual’s online purchase decisions. The variety of devices used to access the Internet also affects the probability of engaging in e-commerce. The objective of this study is to investigate e-commerce behaviour as it varies by kinds of products and devices, personal computers and mobile devices. Using national survey (2005-2012) data from Canada, we explore two broad factors: demographic factors and Internet-access factors that influence the probability of engaging in e-commerce in 15 product categories. Our study reveals that consumers behave differently according to product category and access device. We detect that, in general, perceived risk by consumers produces a negative effect on the likelihood of engaging in e-commerce, although the effect varies by category. Additionally, personal computers are found to cause more security concerns to consumers than do mobile devices. Simultaneously, having a mobile device can increase the odds of engaging in e-commerce more than having a personal computer does. Mobile users are more inclined to purchase online. In addition, demographic information is related to purchase probability in different degrees for each category. By identifying the key factors affecting the actual online purchase, our results may help small and medium-sized enterprises to determine their sales channels and establish their marketing strategies.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207