The effects of the internal and the external factors affecting artificial intelligence (AI) adoption in e-innovation technology projects in the UAE? Applying both innovation and technology acceptance theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has examined factors, such as technology and employee influence on artificial intelligence (AI) adoption of e-innovative projects in the United Arab Emirates. The present study revealed the success or failure of e-innovation adoption in the public sector of the UAE and hinted at potential e-innovative projects to consider essential factors before adopting it. The study's sample covered the government sector, and the data collection method was a survey questionnaire with a sample size of 1037 responses made up of government employees. This paper was mainly built upon the diffusion of innovation and technology acceptance theories. The analysis findings showed that technology (an external factor) significantly and positively contributed to adopting AI e-innovation technology. Further analysis revealed that employee (internal factor) proxies directly influenced the adoption of AI e-innovation technology. Overall, internal and external factors contributed to adopting e-innovation technology in the United Arab Emirates. For future directions, additional factors related to the market should be considered to explore their contribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".