Artificial intelligence in Jordanian education: Assessing acceptance via perceived cybersecurity, novelty value, and perceived trust
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing significance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across different fields highlights the essential role of user acceptance, as the success of this technology largely depends on its adoption and practical use by individuals. This research aims to examine how perceived cybersecurity, novelty value, and perceived trust affect students' willingness to accept AI in educational settings. The study's theoretical basis is the AI Device Use Acceptance (AIDUA) model. Using structural equation modeling, the study tested hypothesized relationships using data from 526 students at Jordanian universities. The results showed that social influence is positively associated with performance expectancy, while perceived cybersecurity is positively related to both performance and effort expectancy. Novelty value is positively associated with performance expectancy but a negative one with effort expectancy. Additionally, effort and performance expectancy significantly influence perceived trust and the willingness to accept AI. Moreover, perceived trust has a notable positive effect on the willingness to accept AI in education. These findings provide valuable guidance for the creation and improvement of AI-driven educational systems in universities, contributing to the broader understanding of AI technology acceptance in the educational field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it