MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770907631 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v9n6p68

Generating and Assessing Consumer’s Innovation Adoption through Consumer Innovativeness, Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Brand Innovativeness

2017· article· en· W2770907631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alev Koçak Alan, Ebru Tümer Kabadayı, Selen Bakış, Yeşim Can, Melih Can Sekerin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingGlobalizationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerning the digitalism, globalization and competition; offering innovative products or services starts to become a critical issue for banks. Banks adapt its technological infrastructure for mobile banking applications to serve in more efficient and valuable way to their existing and potential customers. Unlike with the western countries, mobile technologies usage in developing countries have skipped lots of steps and become so popular. So for, one of the emerging market was chosen for the data collection and data were collected via internet survey with 451 participants. The effects of innovation characteristics (compatibility, ease of use, perceived usefulness, observability, perceived risk), consumer innovativeness and consumer perceived brand innovativeness on consumer innovation adoption were investigated in a holistic model. The results suggested that innovation characteristics had the most impact on consumer innovation adoption. Among these characteristics, compatibility and observability were most influential factors. Consumer innovativeness also affected adoption of innovations. However, contrary to the expectations, consumer perceived brand innovativeness’ effect on adoption was not supported. Future research directions and managerial implications were also given.

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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207