Virtual Commerce Management Using Design Thinking Process to Promote Digital Entrepreneurship for Education Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research were to (1) develop virtual commerce using the design thinking process to promote modern entrepreneurship, (2) carry out a suitability assessment of this process, and (3) evaluate digital entrepreneurship competency (DEC). The research process was therefore divided into 3 phases in accordance with these aims. The evaluation of the developed model was carried out by 7 experts in related fields, and the implementation of the model was carried using a sample of 50 users. Evaluation was measured on a Likert scale and implementation on a scoring rubric from the data in terms of arithmetic means and standard deviations. The results showed that: (1) the DEC model consists of 6 dimensions: 1. design thinking process, 2. entrepreneurship skills, 3. digital platform, 4. eCommerce Platform, 5. 7Cs, 6. Digital User Citizenship; (2) the DEC model was evaluated as being highly appropriate (X=4.80, S.D.=0.21) and (3) the DEC was rated as being at the highest appropriate level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".