Continuance intention to use smartwatches: An empirical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the factors that determine the continuous intention to use smartwatches, one of the most prevalent types of wearable devices. The study extends the expectation confirmation model (ECM) by incorporating other variables (i.e., construct) which capture the unique context of smartwatches continuous usage, namely healthology, perceived aesthetics, habit, and social influence. Hypotheses were assessed using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach on data collected from 287 actual smartwatch users. The results reveal that performance expectancy, satisfaction, healthtology, perceived aesthetics and habit significantly influence the continuous usage of smartwatches, while social influence is non-significant. The research model of this study explains 65.7% of the variance in the continuous usage intention of smartwatches. The insights provided by this study suggest fruitful opportunities for future research. They can also help smartwatches companies, developers and marketers with strategies and directions for further development and growth by ensuring users’ continuous usage of smartwatches.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".