Intentions to use fintech in the Jordanian banking industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to explore the intentions to use FinTech and its important role in the banking industry in Jordan. Accordingly, this study analyzes the nature of the relationship between intention to use financial technology and each of: Processing Unit (PU) perceived usefulness, social impact (SI), customer’s trust (TRU) and perceived ease of use (PEU). Previous research related to financial technology is still under development and which is still being researched by providing an alternative approach to understanding how different business levels have stimulated the emergence of innovation-focused fintech companies, and what are the motives of success. Therefore, the main contribution of this research is to fill the gap in previous research related to financial technology that is still under development and which is still being researched by providing an alternative approach to understanding how different business levels have stimulated the emergence of innovation-focused fintech companies, and what are the motives of success. Results show a positive relation between intention to use financial technology and Processing Unit (PU), social impact (SI), customer’s trust (TRU) and perceived ease of use (PEU). The main contribution of this research is to fill the gap in previous research related to financial technology that is still under development and which is still being researched by providing an alternative approach to understanding how different business levels have stimulated the emergence of innovation-focused fintech companies, and what are the motives of success.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".