MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380050260 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16060295

The Effect of Relative Advantage, Top Management Support and IT Infrastructure on E-Filing Adoption

2023· article· en· W4380050260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samer Aqel AbuAkel, Marhaiza Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessContext (archaeology)AccountingAccounting information systemMarketingIndustrial organization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic filing (e-filing) adoption for tax income purposes is limited in developing countries as the practices of financial accounting and reporting, as well as digitalization in accounting systems, are more prevalent in developed countries. This paper investigates the determinants of e-filing usage in the context of emerging economies such as Jordan. Building on the Technology–Organization–Environment framework (TOE), the study proposes that the effects of relative advantage, top management support, and IT infrastructure as new variables on e-filing adoption and trust in the e-filing systems are positive. The study also proposes that trust in the e-filing system affects e-filing adoption and mediates the influence of relative advantage, top management support, and IT infrastructure on e-filing adoption. Data were collected from 315 respondents and analyzed via Smart PLS. Relative advantage and top management were found to affect the adoption of and trust in e-filing. In addition, trust in the e-filing system affects e-filing adoption and mediates the impact of relative advantage and top management support for e-filing. Therefore, decision-makers should develop a mechanism to increase trust and the benefits of using e-filing for income tax purposes.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207