User acceptance and adoption of smart homes: A decade long systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This survey aims to provide a coherent and bibliometric overview of the theories and constructs employed in smart homes acceptance and adoption literature. To achieve the study aims, we conducted a systematic search for every article related to the SH concept, services and applications, user acceptance and adoption, and integrated IoT home appliances and devices, in 10 major library databases, namely, IEEE Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, Association for Information Systems (AIS), Elsevier, Emerald, Taylor and Francis, Wiley InterScience, Springer, Inderscience, and Hindawi. These databases contain literature focusing on smart home adoption using IoT technology. 40 research articles of journal and peer-reviewed conferences were found relating to our research objective, presented and distributed chronologically, by publisher, country, theory and model, key construct, and with full bibliometrics for each article. Additionally, this survey includes a word cloud and a taxonomy of the entire factors used to understand users’ acceptance and adoption of smart homes in different contexts and applications. This study has many advantages in covering the current research gap in the literature and also the researchers identify theoretical and practical research implications, research limitations, and recommendations for improving the acceptance and usage of smart homes literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".