MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of e-payment system perception and satisfaction: Journey from India to Canada

2022· article· en· W4226105146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arushi Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentPerceptionAgricultureSocial scienceMathematicsVeterinary medicineEngineeringMarketingAgricultural economicsBiotechnologySocioeconomicsBiologyBusinessMedicineEconomicsSociologyFinanceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractCanada is the country, most embracing cashless technology hardly surprising since there are over 2 credit cards for every person living there as claimed by a recent study of forex bonuses 2017. In 2016 this position was attained by Sweden, where barely 1% of the value of all payments was paid in coins or notes. Is India still on the verge of being known as “yet to become a cashless economy”? If yes, then how much time does India expect to become a cashless economy. It is commonly believed that good security gains public trust, and the perceptions of good security and trust ultimately increase the use of electronic payment system. In this paper, we examine the relationship between the security measures offered by the e-payment channel and the ultimate perception of the consumers of the security, trust and usefulness of the e-payment system this study proposes an empirical model that delineates the factors of consumers’ perceived security and perceived trust, with the effects of perceived security and perceived trust on the use of e-payment systems. Primary data has been collected through questionnaires and hypothesis testing is done. Our results show that transaction procedure significantly impacts the perception of the customers which can be employed by the service providers to make e payment sources more efficient and increase its usage.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and HumanitiesSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207