E-government Service Adoption by Citizens: A Literature Review and a High-level Model of Influential Factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-government services refer to services offered by governments using information technology (IT). Many governments around the globe are investing heavily in IT to enhance service delivery to their citizens. However, citizens do not always use these services so that they often forgo their potential benefits because of key interconnected considerations that are perceived to transpire from their use. Over the years several studies examined IT adoption in e-government services contexts, building a rich albeit fragmented body of knowledge in the process. Indeed, the diversity found in these studies and the fast and continuous change that characterizes IT in general, make the identification and the synthesis of the main factors influencing citizens’ adoption of E-government services a relevant and timely endeavor. For this reason, this study builds on the findings of a systematic literature review to provide a high-level framework that conceptually structures the state of knowledge on the topic, and that informs both researchers and practitioners on the main factors influencing e-government services adoption by citizens.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it