Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Robo-Taxi Services in China: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of autonomous driving technologies, robo-taxis (shared autonomous vehicles) are being tested on real roads. In China, in particular, people in some cities such as Beijing and Shanghai can book a robo-taxi online and experience the service. To examine the influential factors on user acceptance of robo-taxi services, this study proposes and employs an extended technology acceptance model (TAM) with four external factors: perceived trust, government support, social influence, and perceived enjoyment. Data were collected through an online questionnaire in China, and responses from 403 respondents were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Both typical TAM factors—including perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude—and external factors were found to play significant roles in predicting users’ intention to use robo-taxis. The four external factors influenced the user acceptance indirectly via typical TAM factors. Improving users’ perceived trust is important for increasing public adoption. A greater emphasis by manufacturers on safety concerns, wider dissemination of information on data protection and safety systems, and government support through incentives for manufacturers and users can help improve public adoption of robo-taxi services.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".