MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603305930

Barriers to Electronic Commerce Adoption in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Critical Literature Review

2008· article· en· W2603305930 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsE-commerceFocus (optics)Sample (material)BusinessComputer scienceMarketingKnowledge managementPublic relationsWorld Wide WebPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is attempting to determine if the barriers reported in early e-commerce researches differ from those found in recent e-commerce studies as well as exploring if the resultant barrier groupings created from e-commerce barriers are dissimilar. To achieve our research’s aim, an extensive literature review was conducted based on what we believe to be representative sample of some of the most cited pieces of research on this topic. The study concludes that though the issues inhibiting SMEs in their uptake of e-commerce are seemingly endless, the reality is that these issues have largely remained the same since the advent of e-commerce in the early 1990’s. The implication of our study is that researchers should stop reinventing the list of e-commerce adoption barriers but instead focus their efforts on how SMEs can overcome these barriers so as to reap the full benefits of the technology.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.299 · 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