MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323658073 · doi:10.18280/isi.280109

Exploring Impact Factors of Mobile Instant Messenger Users’ Continuance Intention

2023· article· fr· W4323658073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huaxiang Liu, Hao Feng, Sida Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuanceInstantInstant messagingInternet privacyComputer scienceAdvertisingBusinessPsychologyWorld Wide WebSocial psychologyFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combining uses and gratifications theory and one construct, that is attitude, from the theory of planned behavior, led to the creation of the research model in this study.Structural equation modeling was applied to analyze data from 414 WeChat users.In this research, we aimed to explore the direct impacts of various gratifications on attitude regarding the use of mobile instant messenger.It was also sought to explore the direct and indirect influences of various gratifications on the continuance intention to use mobile instant messenger.According to the results, attitude is essential in deciding mobile instant messenger users' intention to continue using the service.Additionally, results show that process gratification, as represented by entertainment, and technology gratification, as represented by convenience are two main direct predictors of continued intention to use WeChat.Results also show that attitude acts as a full mediator between process gratification (entertainment), technology gratification (media appeal, social presence), and continuance intention of WeChat users.Attitude partially mediates the relationship between technology gratification (convenience) and continuance intention of WeChat users.Attitude is directly influenced by process gratification (entertainment), as well as technology gratification (convenience, media appeal, social presence).This research helps with grasping the inherent connection mechanism between various gratifications and continuance intention.There are a number of important theoretical and practical implications that emerge from this study.

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207