MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735989020 · doi:10.1109/ciact.2017.7977305

Need for self-expression on instagram: A technology acceptance perspective

2017· article· en· W2735989020 on OpenAlexaff
Tenzin Doleck, Paul Bazelais, David John Lemay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology acceptance modelPerspective (graphical)Path analysis (statistics)Computer sciencePsychologyExpression (computer science)Sample (material)Variable (mathematics)Affect (linguistics)Applied psychologySocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningUsabilityMathematicsHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study is to explore the factors that affect the use of Instagram among Colleged'enseignementgénéraletprofessionnel(CEGEP) students. In a sample of 135 students, the present study examined the role of need for self-expression in the acceptance of Instagram. To do so, a path model using an extended Technology Acceptance Model [3, 4] was used as an explanatory mechanism, wherein the contributory capacity for the variable need for self-expression was tested for its potential as an explanatory external variable. The results of the empirical analysis support the proposed hypotheses. This paper echoes those from varied scholarship on technology acceptance that the technology acceptance model is a useful framework for examining technology acceptance.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207