MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743384695 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2017.8.004

Predicting customer’s intentions to use internet banking: the role of technology acceptance model (TAM) in e-banking

2017· article· en· W2743384695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samar Rahi, Mazuri Abd Ghani, Feras MI Alnaser

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology acceptance modelBusinessElectronic bankingBanking industryThe InternetMarketingComputer scienceUsabilityAccountingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and communication technology (ICT) developments and trends in recent years have had great impacts on banking sector worldwide. Therefore, the disruptive innovative technology has accelerated changes in the way of banking business. The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that influence on Pakistani customer's intentions to adopt internet banking. The sample used in this empirical study includes 265 responses of internet banking users collected through structured questionnaire. For statistical analysis, structural equation model (SEM) approach was used. The present study suggests that internet banking use increases as long as customer perceives it as useful tool. Findings confirmed that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and attitude were the key constructs for promoting internet banking usage in Pakistan. Furthermore, the importance performance matrix analysis has shown that attitude was the most important factor. Thus, banks can focus on cultivation of positive attitudinal beliefs about internet banking among prospect customers.

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)0.007
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations93
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207