MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317036024 · doi:10.1145/3580369

E-government Service Adoption by Citizens: A Literature Review and a High-level Model of Influential Factors

2023· review· en· W4317036024 on OpenAlexaff
Claudie-Ann Tremblay-Cantin, Sehl Mellouli, Mustapha Cheikh‐Ammar, Hager Khechine

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Government Research and Practice · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)GlobeBusinessService delivery frameworkPublic relationsIdentification (biology)Diversity (politics)Service (business)Process (computing)MarketingKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.024
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Government Research and PracticeSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207