MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411656852 · doi:10.51847/eyydsmdp1m

10.51847/eYYDsMDp1m

2000· article· en· W4411656852 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessThe InternetEmpirical researchInternet privacyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper seeks to identify empirically the factors underlying the decision to adopt online banking in Tehran.The sample used in this study is based on 385 interactive questionnaires completed by Tehran internet users.Data were analyzed by employing correlation and multiple linear regression analysis.The results showed that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, trust and use of other banking products positively associated with the intention to use online banking in Tehran.This study was conducted in Tehran and future research can use this model to study the adoption of online banking in other cities.The results allow banks' decision makers to develop strategies that can increase the adoption of online banking.Banks should improve the security and privacy of the websites, which will increase the trust of users.Banks should also create features which are useful to users, try to make the process of using the services easy for consumers, teach customers how to use the online services and use a package deal, such as an account with online access, debit or credit card and a SMS banking service.The findings allow the factors that can influence the adoption of online banking in Tehran to be understood.Unlike existing studies based on Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this study includes, trust and use of other banking products on top of the existing variables used in TAM.Most studies on adoption of online banking are focused on developed countries.By focusing on Iran, this model can also be applied to other countries which are relatively new to ecommerce and online banking.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8900.838

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knit→Same topicICT Impact and Policies→French-language works237,207→