From Prediction to Explanation: Reconceptualizing and Extending the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating
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
Individual adoption and use of technology remains a critical concern for both managers and professionals. Despite the widespread integration of technology into work and organizations, there remain many opportunities for individuals to either extend or limit their use of IT at work. This paper extends work on the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating (PCI), as defined by Moore and Benbasat in 1991. Building on studies over the past ten years as well as on additional empirical research, we provide two contributions ?a reconceptualization and refinement of the PCI constructs, and an extended theoretical model of their influence on users?behavior. The construct refinements aim to provide greater theoretical clarity and to address challenges in the measurement of the constructs. The extended theoretical model provides a more complete picture of the influence of the PCIs, by considering the complex web of relationships among them in addition to their potential direct effects on usage.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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