MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388106250 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.9.024

The critical success factors (CSF) of blockchain technology effecting excel performance of banking sector: Case of UAE Islamic Banks

2023· article· en· W4388106250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hisham O. Mbaidin, Khaled Mohammad Alomari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainContext (archaeology)IslamBusinessCritical success factorIslamic bankingStructural equation modelingAccountingFinancial servicesInvestment (military)MarketingFinanceComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to examine the implementation of Blockchain Technology within the financial sector, with a specific emphasis on its acceptance by Islamic banks operating in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In the context of a technologically advanced period that necessitates expeditious and safe transactions, blockchain emerges as a viable remedy by obviating the need for intermediary entities and augmenting the velocity and security of transactions. This study uses Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to investigate the important success aspects of technology and its influence on the performance of Islamic banks. The findings of this study are of particular importance, as they demonstrate the considerable impact of Investment Willingness on Financial Resources. Additionally, the study highlights the crucial role played by Organizational Culture and Leadership Support in fostering readiness for adoption. This study serves as an initial step towards the wider use of blockchain technology in the financial industry, with a particular focus on its application within Islamic banking institutions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207