MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791703535 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v8n2p1

The Effect of Social Network on Accptability of New Technology in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Piped Water Adoption in Rural India

2018· article· en· W2791703535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akiko Suzuki, Maiko Sakamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsCentralitySocial network (sociolinguistics)Affect (linguistics)BusinessDeveloping countrySocial network analysisLogistic regressionRural areaSocial acceptanceMarketingEconomic growthKnowledge managementEnvironmental economicsPsychologySocial capitalComputer scienceEconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologySocial scienceSocial mediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been pointed out that new technologies introduced in developing countries have not been accepted by local residents in some cases. It is assumed that new technologies need to be adapted to the local social structure if the aim is to generate sustainable technology acceptance. In this paper, the effect of social network on acceptability of new technologies is examined through a case study on piped water adoption in rural India. Social Network Analysis is used to investigate how closed social network groups and the centrality of some individuals in social network affect technology acceptance of residents. The effect of these attributes on technology acceptance is examined using logistic regression model. Our results show 3 main findings as follows: (1) there are no similarities of piped water use among residents belong to the same closed social network group, (2) central persons who affect other residents’ technology use do not have high social status and play any role as a leader, thus, it is needed not to easily select persons who seem to be outstanding as key persons of technology adoption, (3) it is important to focus on not only individual attributes but also social network when new technologies are adapted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207