MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104628627 · doi:10.34306/itsdi.v2i1.354

Impact Of Computer Anxiety On Computer Self Efficacy

2020· article· en· W3104628627 on OpenAlexaff
Kenzi Kin, Orochi Oki, Raiden Rai

Bibliographic record

VenueIAIC Transactions on Sustainable Digital Innovation (ITSDI) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMistakeSpeculationTest (biology)AsideAnxietyComputer sciencePsychologyApplied psychologyBusinessPolitical scienceLawPsychiatryFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data innovation is as of now turning into a worldwide pattern, where it tends to be analyzed by the regular utilization of different incorporated exercises utilizing PC gadgets. When contrasted with manual frameworks, electronic frameworks additionally give a few favorable circumstances to its clients, for example, programmed posting, result volume, speed, mistake counteraction, etc. Aside from these preferences, frequently the outcomes to be accomplished in the utilization of frameworks are mechanized not accomplished, this is likewise because of the irregularity between the modernity of data innovation applied by the association and the individual abilities in its activity. This examination expects to affirm the impact of PC nervousness on PC self-adequacy on the representatives of the North Badung Primary Tax Office. This investigation utilized an immersed test, where the quantity of surveys that were practical to be broke down was 53 polls. Speculation testing utilizing t-test. The aftereffect of this investigation is that PC nervousness negatively affects PC self-viability with a Sig. adding up to 0,000. To additionally improve representative PC self-viability in utilizing PCs, associations should direct preparing on utilizing PC programs consistently. The preparation will legitimately expand the person's view of his capacity to finish undertakings utilizing PC help.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIAIC Transactions on Sustainable Digital Innovation (ITSDI)Same topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207