MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311785729 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.11.007

The effect of e-WOM on customer satisfaction through ease of use, perceived usefulness and e-wallet payment

2022· article· en· W4311785729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agustinus Agung Nugroho, Hotlan Siagian, Adrie Oktavio, Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSMEs Development and Digital Marketing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPaymentTechnology acceptance modelCustomer satisfactionSocial mediaAdvertisingPleasureMobile paymentBusinessPsychologyMarketingComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, streaming applications have been widely used by users to get comfort and pleasure in life. Users communicate with each other on social media related to the activities carried out. Communication is formed online as electronic word of mouth (e-WOM) between one user to another. The data distributed was 1238 respondents using streaming applications and 324 respondents in Indonesia who had used e-wallet payments as members. The analysis data was to answer all research hypotheses using partial least squares. The data processing results show that e-WOM impacts the perceived ease of use of e-wallets by 0.408. E-WOM positively impacts the perceived usefulness of the e-wallet by 0.270. E-WOM has an impact on e-wallet payment intention of 0.190. Perceived ease of use has an effect of 0.175 and perceived usefulness of 0.259 on e-wallet payment intention. Perceived ease of use influences perceived usefulness of 0.395. Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness impact customer satisfaction in terms of 0.157 and 0.217. Finally, it was found that e-wallet payment intention has an impact of 0.173 on customer satisfaction. The results of this study contribute to e-wallet payment users and managers building two-way and effective communication through social media so that they can quickly and accurately solve user problems. The theoretical contribution is to enrich the theory of marketing behavior and technology acceptance models in electronic commerce.

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)0.011
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicSMEs Development and Digital MarketingFrench-language works237,207