MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W755220012

Not All on the Same Page: E-Book Adoption and Technology Exploration by Seniors.

2014· article· en· W755220012 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Anabel Quan‐Haase, Kim Martin, Kathleen Schreurs

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSoftware portabilityMateriality (auditing)Grounded theoryReading (process)Function (biology)PopulationSociologyProcess (computing)PsychologyPublic relationsKnowledge managementMarketingBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceQualitative researchAestheticsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to understand the adoption of e-books and e-readers by persons aged sixty and above. This includes an investigation into where seniors are in the stages of e-book adoption. Method: Data were collected through semi-structured interviews in a mid-size city in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Analysis: Interviews were transcribed, and coded using grounded theory. Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process was used to inform the data analysis process. Results: The results show three key factors affecting adoption: longing for materiality, technology confidence, and technology exploration. While seniors are interested in e-books and e-readers, see many benefits to their use, and are curious about how they function, the majority perceive this technology as being primarily appropriate for younger generations. Conclusion: The findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations amongst the senior population and the development of services geared toward them. E-books and e-readers are technologies that could prove beneficial, aiding with issues related to both portability and convenience. However, e-books do not allow for the sharing of books that this population is accustomed to, and many of them are still on the fence about fully adopting this tool into their reading practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207