MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975092374 · doi:10.2478/fiqf-2019-0013

AN ESSENTIAL REVIEW OF INTERNET BANKING SERVICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2019· article· en· W2975092374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yadgar Taha M. Hamakhan

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Internet Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of reasoned actionTechnology acceptance modelThe InternetDeveloping countryTheory of planned behaviorKnowledge managementWork (physics)BusinessBusiness modelAction (physics)UsabilityMarketingPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceEngineeringManagementEconomicsControl (management)World Wide WebEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the absence of a literature review for an adoption of internet banking in developing countries, this study was conducted to review and summarize the most evaluated articles in the literature. The significance of this work came from three concepts which are to highlight the concepts of research in developing countries, to accentuate the dominant models which have been used effectively in analyzing the constructs in adopting internet banking, and thirdly, to shed some light on the gaps in the potential applications for the system in the future. The Technology Acceptance Model, Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Self Designed models have been used by most of the researchers in this review with a higher frequency of the Technology Acceptance Model among them. The results from this review are limited to 28 articles which were selected from a total of 110. The sources were from the search engines of Science Direct, Emerald Insight, Growing Science, International Business Information Management Association and Canadian Central of Science and Education and other different types of journal publications. The factors revealed to have important effects on the acceptance and adoption of the system were trust, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness, security and privacy and social influences.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Internet QuarterlySame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207