Investigating the effect of perceived risk factors and COVID-19 pandemic situation on online shopping behavior among Malaysians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of perceived risks, i.e., financial risk, product risk, and convenience risk, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic situation on online shopping behavior among Malaysians. This study uses convenience sampling techniques and comprises 185 respondents who have experience buying online. In addition, the study setting was non-contrived, and data was gathered using a closed-ended questionnaire through an online survey. Descriptive analysis was conducted using SPSS version 25.0 software and SmartPLS version 3.2.8 to test the proposed hypotheses. This study found that perceived risk factors such as financial, product, and convenience risk did not influence online shopping behavior. In contrast, the COVID-19 pandemic positively influences online shopping behavior among consumers. It showed a new development in the theory of online shopping behavior, where users continue to make purchases despite being aware that there may be various risks due to the spread of COVID-19. The role of the ministry, business owners, and consumer associations needs to be given attention to form a sustainable electronic commerce system and protect the rights of consumers. This research can help consumers understand their rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".