Technology acceptance drivers for AR smart glasses in the middle east: A quantitative study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to establish Middle East users' perspectives on the major factors that impact their decision to adopt Augmented Reality AR smart glasses (ARSG). Thus, an online questionnaire was designed and sent directly to the respondents, and 584 valid data points were collected from individuals living in the Middle East. The data were analyzed using Pearson correlations and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) techniques using SPSS. Eleven hypotheses were tested using Multiple Regression analysis, where seven independent variables out of eleven were confirmed to have a significant impact on the perceived adoption of ARSG. The results indicate that four of the independent variables including Pre-Market Knowledge, Image, Own privacy and Technology innovativeness show the significant impact on ARSG adoption at the 1% significant level. In addition, the results indicate that three of the social and technological factors include Perceived Ease of use, Perceived usefulness and Other's privacy show the significant effect on ARSG adoption at the 5% significant level. Among the 7 social and technological factors, the results suggest that technology innovation expresses the strongest effect on ARSG adoption with the highest coefficient value of 0.413 (b = 0.413, t = 12.881, ρ < 0.01). Moreover, user intention is significantly impacted by gender and place of living but not by education or age. The research also provides pre-market insights on users' personal types that represent who will most likely adopt the new smart glasses and that differentiate them based on their priorities. To the best of our knowledge, this is among the first works to investigate technology acceptance drivers of AR smart glasses in the Middle East.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it