MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980422479 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v11n4p77

An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Transaction Convenience, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Behavior Intention to Mobile Payment of Cambodian Users

2019· article· en· W2980422479 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Do Nam Hung, Jacquline Tham, S. M. Ferdous Azam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectancy theoryFinancial inclusionMobile paymentBusinessLife expectancyPaymentEmpirical researchDatabase transactionMarketingTransaction costUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyReliability (semiconductor)Empirical evidenceDeveloping countryInclusion (mineral)Financial servicesEconomicsPsychologyFinanceComputer scienceEconomic growthStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile payment (m-payment) is determined as modern application of electronic commerce. It helps financial institutions to widen the financial services to existing customers in developed countries and to increase financial inclusion in developing and emerging countries. Cambodia is a country with low financial inclusion and National Bank of Cambodia perceives that the usage of m-payment can help to increase financial deepness. However, the lack of empirical evidences is a concern and this study is developed to fill the literature gaps. A research model as proposed in which behavior intention towards m-payment is affected by performance expectancy and effort expectancy. This model involves perceived transaction convenience as direct impact on performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Four research hypotheses were proposed and data was collected from 252 questionnaires. Obtained result showed that three hypotheses were supported. Only the effect of perceived transaction convenience on performance expectancy was not significantly. All factors qualified for reliability test’s requirement. EFA Analysis was conducted to verify the construct between factors and belonged items. Based on empirical results, recommendations and future researches were proposed.

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)0.006
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207