MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958748870 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v10n2p48

Perceived Risk on Online Store Image Towards Purchase Intention

2019· article· en· W2958748870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lu Hong, Noorshella Che Nawi, Wan Farha Wan Zulkiffli, Dzulkifli Mukhtar, Shah Iskandar Fahmie Ramlee

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPurchasingRisk perceptionAdvertisingProduct (mathematics)Order (exchange)The InternetInternet privacyPurchase orderInternet shoppingAffect (linguistics)MarketingPsychologyFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this study is to identify purchase intention among Malaysian online consumer towards online store. A recent data provided by MCMC indicate that only 9.3 percent of Internet users in Malaysia admitted doing online purchasing despite huge number reflects Malaysian is heavy Internet users. This is due to the factors that the consumers are feared towards risk they may get during shopping online and this can affect their purchase intention activities. The finding identified that privacy risk and delivery risk are significant to purchase intention among online consumers in Malaysia. Meanwhile, financial risk, product performance risk, time risk, psychological risk, social risk and after-sale risk are not significant to purchase intention. This indicated that Malaysian online consumers tend to care their personal information has been misused by third parties within their permission in order to prevent privacy risk in online shopping activities.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207