MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293215325 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.7.001

Understanding the role of the bring-your-own-device policy in mobile learning behavioral usage

2022· article· en· W4293215325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nida AL-Sous, Dmaithan Almajali, Zulkhairi Dahalin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBring your own deviceMobile devicePsychologyStructural equation modelingPopulationInternet privacyBusinessApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The determinants of bring-your-own-device (BYOD) use protection intentions affecting BYOD usage protection behaviors were examined in this study. The determinants of employees’ behavioral intention to use and their actual protection behavior in protecting their devices BYOD environment were identified. Jordanian residents aged 18 and above, with mobile learning behavioral usage awareness, made up the study population. A survey questionnaire was used to obtain the data, while the proposed research model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The results show positive impact of BYOD usage protection intention on mobile learning behavioral usage, while attitude showed insignificant impact on BODY usage protection intention. Subjective norms significantly affected BYOD usage protection intention, while information security awareness showed insignificant impact on BYOD usage protection intention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207