MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604164754

Factors Affecting the Adoption and Usage of Online Services in Oman

2017· article· en· W2604164754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Saleh Shatat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrustworthinessContext (archaeology)UsabilityComputer scienceInternet privacyBusinessKey (lock)World Wide WebKnowledge managementComputer securityGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online services are a great solution to many trendy businesses and individuals if adopted and used properly, and if not will cause many interruptions to the businesses and end-users. This research paper investigates the factors that affecting the adoption and usage of online services in Oman. A survey questionnaire was used to explore the impact of some core influential factors on the adoption and usage of online services within the Omani context by testing the data that were collected from 270 participants in Al-Batinah North region. This study identifies the key influential factors such as usefulness, ease of use, cultural and social issues, awareness, trustworthiness, security, and privacy. The findings of this research show that there is a significant relationship between usefulness, ease of use, and trustworthiness with the adoption and use of online services in Oman. The results clarify the main factors that influence the decision of Omanis and other residents to adopt and use the online services that are provided by many firms in the Sultanate of Oman. The implication of findings is briefly 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)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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