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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.122
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; 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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