MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386754754 · doi:10.1177/21582440231197495

Behavioral Intention to Use Online for Shopping in Bangladesh: A Technology Acceptance Model Analysis

2023· article· en· W4386754754 on OpenAlexaff
Shafiqul Islam, Mohammad Fakhrul Islam, Noor-E- Zannat

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingTechnology acceptance modelMarketingBusinessUsabilityConsumer behaviourAdvertisingThe InternetComputer-assisted web interviewingPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer behavior and the way businesses conduct their operations have changed due to the widespread usage of internet purchasing worldwide. Bangladesh’s reliance on online shopping presents both opportunities and difficulties. The relatively large marketplace is driving up demand for online shopping. On the contrary, the need for greater technological proficiency that underpins online purchasing presents a significant challenge for entrepreneurs, managers, and consumers. This paper employed TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) to explore and predict Bangladeshi customers’ online purchasing intentions. The data were collected from 322 online consumers in Dhaka and analyzed with SEM utilizing SMART PLS 3. The data analysis demonstrates a significant association between consumers’ buying intention and Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), Perceived Enjoyment (PE), and Subjective Norms (SN). On the contrary, the data portrayed Perceived Risk (PR) as insignificant. However, our findings suggest that the TAM can still be used to explain the change in behavior associated with using a marketplace, particularly when buying online products or services. In addition, to give a more profound knowledge, various user characteristics according to generation group still need to be studied. Findings further suggest that this study has academic and industry ramifications regarding anticipating consumers’ online purchasing choices in the digital marketing community. The study concludes with a discussion of its limitations and future research directions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207