Harnessing digital issue in adopting metaverse technology in higher education institutions: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study delves into the intricate landscape of metaverse technology adoption within higher education institutions in the UAE, investigating the multifaceted interplay of accessibility, technology adaptability, and policies and regulations. Using a cross-sectional research design, data was meticulously collected through a multistage sampling approach, combining probability and non-probability methods. A pretested questionnaire underwent rigorous evaluation, ensuring unbiased item formulation and adherence to best practices. The investigation challenges and extends the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by revealing unexpected findings. The absence of a significant relationship between accessibility and metaverse adoption prompts a call for an expanded TAM framework. Surprisingly, a negative correlation between technology adaptability and adoption is highlighted, emphasizing the need for a cautious assimilation approach. Moreover, the research underscores the influential role of policies and regulations in metaverse adoption, advocating for a comprehensive TAM framework that encompasses regulatory dynamics. Findings offer practical implications for stakeholders, policymakers, and institutions, emphasizing diverse adoption facets beyond accessibility. The study contributes to the discourse on metaverse adoption and advances theoretical frameworks for technology integration within educational contexts. The methodology's meticulous design underscores the study's rigor, ensuring the robustness of the insights gleaned from the investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".