Assessing Acceptance Toward Wiki Technology in the Context of Higher Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="3">This study investigated undergraduate students’ intention to use wiki technology. An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been used by taking into account not only students’ wiki perceived utility and usability, but also Big Five personality characteristics and two other variables, social norms, and facilitating conditions, as proposed in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Students’ beliefs before (pre-wiki scenario) and after (post-wiki scenario) the actual use of the wiki system were investigated, with 85 and 86 participants respectively. The hypotheses were tested using partial least squares analysis. For the pre-wiki scenario, 8/15 hypotheses were confirmed and 11/15 for the post-wiki scenario. The relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness was found to be of the highest magnitude. The most notable difference across the two scenarios was that the relation between perceived ease of use and attitudes towards use was significant only in the first scenario. The results demonstrate that the proposed TAM-extended model could predict students’ wiki acceptance.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it