MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293215329 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.6.011

Use of artificial intelligence system to predict consumers’ behaviors

2022· article· en· W4293215329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Al Adwan, Raed Aladwan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingEmpirical researchConsumer behaviourPaymentDimension (graph theory)Technology acceptance modelMarketingExternal variableValue (mathematics)Computer scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyBusinessMachine learningHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In online shopping enterprises, AI technology has been widely used to provide accurate and fast personalized consumer services. This research demonstrates the use of AI technology in the e-commerce business, specifically online enterprises, to determine different effects. The study was conducted in Jordan and involved about 230 participants. The study evaluated different impacts of AI, such as e-payment and stimulating consumers' sentiments. The study used the Stimulus–Organism–Response model (SOR) empirical model, which states that the examination of human processes differs from that of the machine assessment. The model classified the AI technology experienced by the customers' when they visit online to do purchasing. Online purchasing behaviors can be influenced by insight, accuracy, and interaction experience. Also, the perceived value was used as a mediating variable from the prospects of perceived hedonic and utility value. The research integrated empirical research models such as SEM and SPSS to analyze the data on the effects of three-dimension. The results indicated that the AI technology accuracy, interactive experience, and insight significantly affected customers' perceived hedonic and utilitarian values.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.303
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207