User Acceptance of Usable Blockchain-Based Research Data Sharing System:\n An Extended TAM Based Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology has evolved as a promising means to transform data\nmanagement models in many domains including healthcare, agricultural research,\ntourism domains etc. In the research community, a usable blockchain-based\nsystem can allow users to create a proof of ownership and provenance of the\nresearch work, share research data without losing control and ownership of it,\nprovide incentives for sharing and give users full transparency and control\nover who access their data, when and for what purpose. The initial adoption of\nsuch blockchain-based systems is necessary for continued use of the services,\nbut their user acceptance behavioral model has not been well investigated in\nthe literature. In this paper, we take the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as\na foundation and extend the external constructs to uncover how the perceived\nease of use, perceived usability, quality of the system and perceived enjoyment\ninfluence the intention to use the blockchain-based system. We based our study\non user evaluation of a prototype of a blockchain-based research data sharing\nframework using a TAM validated questionnaire. Our results show that, overall,\nall the individual constructs of the behavior model significantly influence the\nintention to use the system while their collective effect is found to be\ninsignificant. The quality of the system and the perceived enjoyment have\nstronger influence on the perceived usefulness. However, the effect of\nperceived ease of use on the perceived usefulness is not supported. Finally, we\ndiscuss the implications of our findings.\n
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it