MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408635683 · doi:10.4236/ti.2025.162004

Effect of Digitisation of School Fee Payment on School Fee Processing Time—A Comparative Study of Traditional and Digital Payment Systems

2025· article· en· W4408635683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Banda Nsamwa, Kingsley Namangala, Ikabongo Mwiya

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Data Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentBusinessPayment systemFinanceActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the factors influencing the efficiency of digital payment systems, focusing on payment methods, user continuity, and ease of navigation. Through logistic regression analysis, the research identifies significant associations between these factors and users’ perceptions of time efficiency. Key findings include the negative impact of certain payment methods on perceived efficiency, the delicate balance of factors influencing user continuity, and the positive influence of ease of navigation on time efficiency. The study underscores the importance of user-centric design and suggests recommendations for improving digital payment systems, such as user education, continuous system navigation improvement, and incentives for user continuity. Furthermore, it proposes avenues for future research, including cross-cultural analysis and longitudinal studies, to enhance our understanding of the evolving landscape of digital payments. By offering actionable insights for stakeholders, this research contributes to optimising digital payment systems, aligning with user expectations, and fostering enduring engagement in the digital finance ecosystem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicInformation Retrieval and Data MiningFrench-language works237,207