MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958542404 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.7.011

An empirical analysis of Cambodian behavior intention towards mobile payment

2019· article· en· W2958542404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nam Hung, Jacquline Tham, S. M. Ferdous Azam

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectancy theoryDatabase transactionEmpirical researchPaymentAffect (linguistics)Empirical evidenceLife expectancyPsychologyUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyMobile paymentSocial psychologyBusinessComputer scienceDemographyStatisticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile payment is becoming an evitable trend in the globe and is well expanding rapidly into emerging countries. Many research models are developed and confirmed that behavior intention is an important fact which decides the level of using mobile payment among users. The existing research models have made empirical evidences confirming behavior intention depended on performance and effort expectancy. This research expands previous empirical evidence by involving perceived transaction speed as an important explanatory variable to both performance expectancy and effort expectancy and also captures how behavior intention is influenced by performance expectancy and effort expectancy among Cambodian users. A total of 200 questionnaires were collected, analyzed and summarized for this study. Result reveals that performance expectancy and effort expectancy affect positively and significantly on behavior intention. Perceived transaction speed has a positive and significant relationship with effort expectancy but Perceived transaction does not have any positive and significant relationship with performance expectancy. Result from this study also concludes the role of perceived transaction speed which is affecting intention to use mobile payment among users. However, there are some limitations to be addressed for the future researches; this research may include larger samples to find out the clear effect on behavior intention of the end-users.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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