MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623465016 · doi:10.5430/jbar.v6n2p8

Research on the Influence of Web Experience on Consumers’ Purchasing Intention

2017· article· en· W2623465016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuanyuan Pan, Miao Wang, Cong Chen, Hongjian Qu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Administration Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingProfitability indexMarketingWeb designBusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide WebThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conversion rate is the core of e-commerce sites, and web experience is one of the most important factors of web conversion. A good web experience can bring consumers with trust and confidence, so that improve the income and profitability of the e-commerce business. This paper reviews the theory of web experience, the consumers’ purchasing intention and other related theories. In this study, we systematically analyze the definition, measurement, evaluation system and application status of web experience, and discusses the relationship between web experience and consumers’ purchasing intention. Research shows that the web experience is the weight of web design to the decision-making factors, the existing research on the web experience’s definition, composition there are different, resulting in web experience measurement and evaluation different; web experience measurement methods and quantitative evaluation methods have yet to be improved. According to previous research, we summarize the shortcomings of current web evaluation and provide a direction for future research on web experience and consumers’ purchasing intention.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.535
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.033 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Administration ResearchSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207