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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.327
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