MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386014980 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.7.007

Factors affecting the adoption of e-wallets to enter cashless society: An integration approach

2023· article· en· W4386014980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nor Hazlina Hashim, Tak Jie Chan, Panfeng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMultimedia University
KeywordsKuala lumpurInnovation diffusionBusinessData collectionTest (biology)Government (linguistics)Unified theory of acceptance and use of technologyMarketingPsychologySocial influenceSocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Malaysian government actively encourages the development of e-wallets in Malaysia and set a goal to enter a cashless society by 2050. However, the mobile technology that has swept the world does not seem to be developing smoothly in Malaysia. The objective of the study is to investigate the determinants that impact the user behavior of Malaysians in adopting e-wallets and proposes integration theoretical models, namely UTAUT 2, Diffusion of Innovation, and self-efficacy to support the study. Data were collected among 253 Malaysian e-wallet users in the Federal State of Kuala Lumpur. The survey (online questionnaire) was distributed to respondents via QR codes and links as data collection. The PLS-SEM was utilized to test hypothetical relationships. The findings of the study demonstrated that compatibility, hedonic motivation, habits, and self-efficacy have a significant relationship with the user behavior of e-wallets. Self-efficacy was found to be the strongest predictor in influencing the use behavior of e-wallets. Conclusion, implications, and suggestions for future study were also discussed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207