MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400654095 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.4.016

Identifying variables influencing the adoption of artificial intelligence big data analytics among SMEs in Jordan

2024· article· en· W4400654095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Belal Mathani, Hamid Safyyih Ajrash, Ahmad Barakat Dalaee Dalaeen, Khaled Yousef Alshboul, Hazem Almahameed, Mohammad Haider Alibraheem, Amin Khalifeh, Mohammad Issa Alzoubi, Ahmad Y. A. Bani Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementPreparednessBusinessData collectionFlexibility (engineering)Big dataMarketingComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research investigates the link between technology, organization, and environment, and the uptake of artificial intelligence among SMEs in Jordan. The objective is to get a deeper understanding of the factors that promote or hinder enterprises' use of artificial intelligence during the recruitment of leaders. A total of 295 participants, who were owners or managers in several SME sectors, manufacturing, including services, construction, and agriculture, were selected via judgmental sampling. Data collection was conducted utilizing a survey instrument, and the collected data was processed employing Smart PLS. The findings demonstrated a substantial correlation between attitude toward artificial intelligence uptake and factors such as relative advantage, complexity, top management commitment, and organizational preparedness. Nevertheless, factors like competitive pressure, external assistance, a favorable regulatory environment, compatibility, and staff flexibility do not significantly influence the attitude toward the uptake of artificial intelligence. In summary, these findings provide valuable insights for decision-making and resource distribution. They underscore the significance of factors such as relative advantage, complexity, top management commitment, and organizational readiness in achieving goals in the field of artificial intelligence. Additionally, they identify areas where efforts may not result in significant effects. The practical ramifications and future study paths are emphasized according to current technological needs.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0050.002
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207