MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093130795

E-WALLET ADOPTION: A CASE IN MALAYSIA

2020· article· en· W3093130795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa Teoh Teng Tenk, Hoo Chin Yew, Lee Teck Heang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentBusinessIncentiveDatabase transactionMobile paymentFinancial transactionQuarter (Canadian coin)The InternetUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyMarketingFinanceEconomicsExpectancy theoryComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In line with the rapid growth in internet access, Fintech, online shopping and cross border trading in recent years, mobile payment transactions are expected to be the most prevalent means to complete sales transactions. A RM30 incentive of the use of E-wallet was announced for the Malaysia Budget 2020 to spur the use of E-wallet in Malaysia, while the central bank of Malaysia (BNM) has launched the Financial Sector Blueprint 2011-2020 aiming to eliminate the issuance of cheques and to increase e-payments, which accelerate the speed of transformation into a cashless society and stimulate the shift towards the electronic payment era. This paper contributes by examining the E-wallet adoption behavior of Malaysian smartphone users. The UTAUT model has been used. Data from 210 respondents were collected through an online survey. The findings show that three quarter of Malaysians have tried or started to use E-wallet, despite that it is still not a very common payment option. Half are spending less than RM100 per month using E-wallet with the average amount per transaction of not more than RM50. Partial-least-squares-structural-equation-modelling (PLS-SEM) is applied. The results reveal performance expectation, effort expectation and social influence have positive impact on the use behavior of E-wallet, whilst the perceived risk and perceived costs have no significant influence. Being at the infant stage of E-wallet in Malaysia, the regulators and retailers should focus their efforts on promoting the benefits brought by

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)0.003
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceFrench-language works237,207