MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313323180 · doi:10.33736/ijbs.5172.2022

The Emergence of E-Wallet in Sarawak: Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sarawak Pay

2022· article· en· W4313323180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maximus Balla Tang, Barbara Anak Dieo, Mohd Kamarul Anwar Mohd Suhaimi, Jessica Lyn Anak Andam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateGovernment (linguistics)BusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)UsabilityMarketingTechnology acceptance modelPopulationRisk perceptionPublic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsGeographyPolitical sciencePsychologyEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the adoption factors of electronic wallet, more specifically Sarawak Pay in Kuching, Sarawak. The Sarawak Government has a very aggressive mandate in terms of digital transformation to boost the e-commerce industry in Sarawak. Propel with the effort of federal and state governments in encouraging a cashless and digital society, Kuching will foresee a rapid rise in the adoption of Sarawak Pay. This paper adopts and expands the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in addressing the adoption factors of Sarawak Pay. With a population of three quarter a million, it is vital to understand whether perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived risk and reward play any significant roles in the adoption of Sarawak Pay. Data were collected from 204 respondents and the results were examined using partial least squares-structured equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Findings indicated that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived risk have significant impacts on Sarawak Pay adoption. As a result of the study, the understanding of existing theoretical literature on e-wallets in Malaysia will be enhanced.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and SocietySame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207