Examining UTAUT model for mobile food ordering applications (MOFAs): A case study of Food-panda application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the Mobile Food Ordering Application (MFOA) in a collectivist country like Pakistan. Data was gathered using an online survey-based approach from 354 MFOA users and was analyzed using the structural equation modeling technique through Smart PLS 3.0. The results show that consumers’ online reviews strongly influence customer satisfaction and continued intention. Similarly, price value and online tracking of food services are strongly associated with customer satisfaction. Consumer habits and facilitation conditions are significantly associated with consumer continued intention. Habit is also found to partially mediate consumer satisfaction and continued intention. The study did not find any support for performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, price value, hedonic motivation, or online review with continued intention. Similarly, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and hedonic motivation were not associated with consumer satisfaction. The present work is the first of its kind that has empirically examined the effectiveness of MFOAs in Pakistan. It lays down useful practical implications for practitioners, policymakers, and academia.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".