MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021600014 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.4.037

E-WOM and airline e-ticket purchasing intention: Mediating effect of online passenger trust

2020· article· en· W3021600014 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alaeddin Ahmad, Mohammad Abuhashesh, Zaid Mohammad Obeidat, Marwa Jehad AlKhatib

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTicketPurchasingBusinessAdvertisingMarketingComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continues growth of online network is visible and obvious which extend the impact of electronic word of mouth (E-WOM) on different online platforms that has dramatically increased. Subsequently consumer buying decision will be affected as well. Online trust is a significant factor here due to its role in influencing airline e-ticket purchasing intention. The purpose of this research is to investigate the role of online trust on mediating the relationship between e-WOM and airline eticket purchasing intention. The online research questionnaire survey technique was used in this research to examine the dimensions on E-WOM, online trust, and purchasing intention on airline e-ticket purchasing intention towards 311 respondents. Purposive sampling techniques was used in this research and structural equation modeling was used to test the research hypotheses. The study results confirm that E-WOM has an impact on online trust and airline e-ticket purchasing intention. The findings of this research provide valuable information to future researchers and airline companies' marketers and managers who employ on booking system, also it is useful for individuals to pay more attention on the credibility of E-WOM and whether or not they should trust the source.

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)0.008
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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