MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387837106 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16100453

FinTech Adoption of Financial Services Industry: Exploring the Impact of Creative and Innovative Leadership

2023· article· en· W4387837106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muzamil Ahmad Baba, Zia ul Haq, Mohsina Dawood, Kumar Aashish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingMarketingBusinessFinancial servicesKnowledge managementComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the link between creative and innovative leadership and FinTech adoption through the transmission mechanisms of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU). This study used a questionnaire survey method to collect data from a sample of 721 employees working in the Indian financial services sector. The data were analyzed using structural equation modelling. The study results revealed a significant and positive influence of creative and innovative leadership, PEOU, and PU on FinTech adoption. Moreover, PEOU and PU mediated the link between creative and innovative leadership and FinTech adoption. This study proposes a new vision for managerial procedures to understand the critical aspects regarding FinTech adoption. The study advises that engineering managers should offer simple and user-friendly technology to enhance the adoption rate. Additionally, the results suggest the importance of creative and innovative leadership for competitively exploiting novel technologies. Given India’s digital revolution and huge market potential, the FinTech sector could prove a game-changer, especially in generating employment for the young and technologically qualified population. Tech-driven organizations could use the study findings strategically in this digital era.

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)0.002
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 score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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