MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982964715 · doi:10.28945/4448

Digital Logistics Capability: Factors Impacting Technology Acceptance

2019· article· en· W2982964715 on OpenAlexaff
Denise A Breckon, Ilene A. McCoy, Tiffany Strom, Donna W Jordan, Keni Galmai

Bibliographic record

VenueMuma Business Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology acceptance modelUsabilityPerceptionKnowledge managementBusinessNavyProcess managementComputer sciencePsychologyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Logistics Competency is implementing new technology that will transform the way that logistics analysis is performed. Implementing technology can be a challenge for organizations and especially when the technology disrupts the existing logistics processes. Some of the workforce may view the use of digital devices as frustrating and are likely to be reluctant to accept the new technology even with its enhanced benefits that improve logistics. This research uses a systematic review and thematic synthesis to identify the factors impacting a user’s perceptions of the technology and how their perceptions influence acceptance through the theoretical lens of the technology acceptance model. A user’s acceptance is influenced by their perceptions of the complexity and usability of the technology, leadership’s demonstrated support of the technology, and self-perceptions of self-efficacy and trust. Managers should introduce the technology with a positive attitude, choose early adopters to influence peers, and provide tailored training according to the user’s comfort and perceptions to increase trust and increase acceptance.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient 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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuma Business ReviewSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207