MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963091496 · doi:10.5430/jms.v10n4p7

Understanding the Usage of Social Networks Apps Among Organizations and Its Impact on Team Performance: Empirical Study

2019· article· en· W2963091496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasser A. Saif Almuraqab

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractivityKnowledge managementTeamworkSocial mediaTeam compositionSocial network (sociolinguistics)Empirical researchBusinessComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays in the digital era the development of applications influences the process of group collaboration. And social networks apps usage among enterprises and institutions is growing enormously. Most of the researches on social networks technologies usage are focused on the individual viewpoint, while others are from the organizational viewpoint. Nevertheless, not many research works have examined the actual influence of social networks apps usage via smart devices on team’s performance. The need of communication in group teamwork while doing tasks or projects, forces the team to plan their meetings to finish tasks given. Therefore, using the quantitative approach, this research aims to reveal the predictors that drive the employees to use social networks technologies, and the consequences of using these technologies in team performance. This research model was validated using Partial Least Squares approach with on 110 respondents. The results disclosed that perceived ease of use, perceived compatibility, perceived usefulness, and perceived interactivity of the social network applications, drive the employees to use these applications when performing their group projects. In addition, collaborative working is also a significant predictor for the employees to use social networks applications. Also, the use of social networks technologies also showed a positive impact on team performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207