MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161499990 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.502

Augmenting the technology acceptance model with trust model for the initial adoption of a blockchain-based system

2021· article· en· W3161499990 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology acceptance modelStructural equation modelingBlockchainComputer scienceTest (biology)Latent variableEmpirical researchData sharingKnowledge managementData scienceComputer securityUsabilityHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the collaborative business environment, blockchain coupled with smart contract removes the reliance on a central system and offers data integrity which is crucial when the transacting parties rely on the shared data. The acceptance of such blockchain-based systems is necessary for the continued use of the services. Despite many extensive studies evaluating the performance of blockchain-based systems, few have focused on users' acceptance of real-life applications. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this research is to evaluate the user acceptance of a real-life blockchain-based system (BBS) by observing various latent variables affecting the development of users' attitudes and intention to use the system. It also aims to uncover the dimensions and role of trust, security and privacy alongside the primary Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)-based predictors and their causal relationship with the users' behavior to adopt such BBS. METHODS: We tested the augmented TAM with Trust Model on a BBS that comprises two subsystems: a Shopping Cart System (SCS), a system oriented towards end-users and a Data Sharing System (DSS), a system oriented towards system administrators. We set research questions and hypotheses, and conducted online surveys by requesting each participant to respond to the questionnaire after using the respective system. The main study comprises two separate sub-studies: the first study was performed on SCS and the second on DSS. Furthermore, each study data comprises initial pre-test and post-test data scores. We analyzed the research model with partial least square structural equation modelling. RESULTS: The empirical study validates our research model and supports most of the research hypotheses. Based on our findings, we deduce that TAM-based predictors and trust constructs cannot be applied uniformly to BBS. Depending on the specifics of the BBS, the relationships between perceived trust antecedents and attitudes towards the system might change. For SCS, trust is the strongest determinant of attitudes towards system, while DSS has perceived privacy as the strongest determinant of attitudes towards system. Quality of system shows the strongest total effect on intention to use SCS, while perceived usefulness has the strongest total effect on intention to use DSS. Trust has a positive significant effect on users' attitudes towards both BSS, while security does not have any significant effect on users' attitudes toward BBS. In SCS, privacy positively affects trust, but security has no significant effect on trust, whereas, in DSS, both privacy and security have significant effects on trust. In both BBS, trust has a moderating effect on privacy that correlates with attitudes towards BBS, whereas security does not have any mediating role between privacy and attitudes towards BBS. Hence, we recommend that while developing BBS, particular attention should be paid to increasing user trust and perceived privacy.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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