MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415649555 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18110602

The Influence of the Digital Accounting System on the Quality of Sustainable Decision-Making

2025· article· en· W4415649555 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Almgrashi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Accounting information systemSustainabilityWork (physics)Information systemStructural equation modelingData collectionInformation quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses De Lone and McLean’s Information System (D&M IS) Success Model concerning DAS throughout small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Saudi Arabia (SA). The present work mainly sought to evaluate the impact of information quality (IQ), system quality (SysQ), service quality (SrvQ) serving, system utilization, and user satisfaction (Usat) on the usage of the Digital Accounting System (DAS), which is posited to ultimately improve the quality of sustainable decision-making. The research utilized a quantitative methodology, employing a self-administered questionnaire to collect data from 328 decision-makers who are knowledgeable about actual DAS usage by SMEs in SA. Subsequent to gathering data, validation was conducted via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) by utilizing smart-PLS software. The findings indicate that SysQ and IQ significantly influenced system utilization, although SrvQ did not. DAS was determined to significantly influence user happiness. Moreover, system utilization and user satisfaction positively influenced DAS, thereby affecting the sustainability of decision-making and reflecting the overall benefits of DAS. This work enhances the current IS literature by identifying the characteristics that affect the net advantages of DAS, with the suggested model evaluated in SMEs in SA utilizing DAS. This study serves as a reference to elucidate the significance of DAS and offers consequences, limitations, and prospects for further research.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207