Self-service technology in airports: analyzing flow experience and user acceptance in Indonesia
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 aviation industry has undergone significant transformation due to the adoption of self-service technology (SST), which aims to enhance operational efficiency and passenger experience. This study aims to understand the key factors contributing to the successful adoption and usage of self-service check-in kiosks. We examine how flow experience and user acceptance are influenced by perceived performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions within the context of Soekarno-Hatta Airport. The study employs an electronic questionnaire and partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the data. The results indicate that social influence and facilitating conditions significantly enhance flow experience, which positively influences passengers’ intention to continue to use SST. These findings contribute to the theoretical expansion of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model by integrating the concept of flow experience and providing practical insights for enhancing passenger engagement and satisfaction through SST in airports.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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