MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385650111 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16080364

Internet Banking Service Perception in Mexico

2023· article· en· W4385650111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elena Moreno-García

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaThe InternetPerceptionBusinessContext (archaeology)PopulationService (business)Internal consistencySample (material)Reliability (semiconductor)Confirmatory factor analysisMarketingPsychologyGeographySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perception, adoption, use and satisfaction regarding Internet banking in Mexico have been scarcely explored. This research contributes to the limited literature on Internet banking in Mexico. Its objective is to analyze the perception that a population of workers has about the online service provided by banks in Mexico. The information was collected from a sample of 197 workers who make use of Internet banking. A very acceptable Cronbach’s alpha index was obtained (α = 0.919), which gives evidence of good internal consistency and reliability. The results of an exploratory and confirmatory analysis with a structural equation model (SEM) show that ten out of the eleven attributes explain workers’ perception of Internet banking services. From the eleven attributes analyzed, only four of them are significant in the Mexican context. These attributes are: security, monthly account statement, speed in decision-making and accessibility. In terms of implications for banking practice, the results of this research provide deeper insights for bank managers and policy makers to understand Mexicans’ motivation and develop appropriate strategies to increase Internet banking use.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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