MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015568260 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.3.029

Determinants influencing customers' decision to use mobile payment services: The case of Vietnam

2020· article· en· W3015568260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nghi Huu Phan, Mạnh Dũng Trần, Van Hoa Hoang, Thanh Dung Dang

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessReputationPaymentMobile paymentMarketingOrder (exchange)Service providerService (business)Unified theory of acceptance and use of technologySocial securityExpectancy theoryFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is conducted to investigate the impact levels of determinants on customers' decision to use payment services via mobile devices in Hanoi, Vietnam. Data were collected from a survey of people living in Hanoi city of Vietnam who may or not use mobile payment services. Based on the theory of technology acceptance and use (UTAUT) developed, we design a research model with six determinants including expected efficiency, effort expectations, social impact, safety and security, perceived costs and supplier reputation. The results show that determinants of expected efficiency, expected effort, social impact, safety and security and supplier reputation (except perceived costs) had positive impacts on the decision of customer. However, the degree and order of impact varies between two groups of unused and already used customers. In particular, the determinants of effort of expectation, safety and security, reputation of suppliers had the strongest impacts on the decisions of customers in both groups in using payment services through mobile device. Based on the findings, we give suggestions for managers and service providers in developing this kind of service in Hanoi, Vietnam as a case study for emerging countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207