MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400654205 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.4.018

Factors affecting attitude to use metaverse technology application

2024· article· en· W4400654205 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh, Barween Al Kurdi, Issam Okleh, Khireddine Chatra, Thouraya Snoussi, Haitham M. Alzoubi, Nidal Alzboun, Gouher Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaverseLikert scaleComputer scienceCuriosityPsychologySocial psychologyHuman–computer interactionVirtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of the “Metaverse” is a three-dimensional virtual world that relies on simulations of reality to represent real-life experiences, and it can be classified as the next generation in using the Internet. In this research, we will examine the factors that may influence user acceptance of metaverse and the relationships between these variables highlight how different factors can be examined. The goal of understanding these factors is to determine how Metaverse developers can improve this technology to meet user expectations and enable users to better interact with this technology. To achieve this goal, a sample of 312 students’ participants from different age groups was selected to respond to an online Likert scale questionnaire ranging from) strongly disagree equal) to (strongly agree equal 5). The study found that perceived enjoyment significantly positively influences technology metaverse application. Moreover, perceived curiosity and perceived self-efficacy positively influence technology application metaverse transitions. In addition, perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) positively influence the attitude toward using the Metaverse technology/application, which means that all the previous factors have an overall positive effect on the attitude toward using the Metaverse technology application.

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)0.002
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 score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207