MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411656577 · doi:10.51847/fg3yftzq8g

10.51847/FG3yFtZQ8g

2000· article· en· W4411656577 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk perceptionProduct (mathematics)PsychologyAdvertisingBusinessMarketingPerceptionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of the current study is to determine the influence of convenience risk, product risk, and perceived risk on online shopping with the moderating effect of attitude in Pakistani context.In these days, online shopping is rapidly increasing all over the world and it gives confidence to scholars to determine what factor at the time of shopping online consumers see.The research model of this study is developed on the basis of theoretical background to investigate the influence of convenience risk, product risk, and perceived risk on online shopping with the moderating effect of attitude.The data was collected from students who are mostly master degree holders.The data was collected through questionnaire technique by applying convenient sampling technique, and one hundred questionnaires were distributed to students of Gujranwala and Islamabad.Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques have been used for statistical analysis.Findings revealed that convenience risk and perceived risk are significantly and negatively associated with online shopping.Moreover, attitude is significantly and positively associated with online shopping.In contrast, product risk is insignificantly associated with online shopping.Furthermore, findings elucidated that attitude significantly moderates the relationship between convenience risk, product risk, and online shopping.In contrast, findings revealed that attitude does not significantly moderate the relationship between perceived risk and online shopping.Limitations of the current study and direction for future studies are delineated at the end of paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9460.927

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207