An Extended Model of Adoption of Technology in Households: A Model Test on People Using A Mobile Phone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual adoption of technology has been studied extensively in the workplace (Brown & Venkatesh, 2005). Far less attention has been paid to adoption of technology in the household (Brown & Venkatesh, 2005). Obviously, mobile phone is now integrated into our daily life. Indeed, according to the more recent forecast of Gartner Research, 986 millions of mobile phones have been sold throughout the world in 2006 (Ouellet, 2006). And, as the tendency is showing up, mobile phone use will be continuously increasing in the future. The purpose of this study is then to investigate who uses a mobile phone, and why? In other words, we try to identify who really are the users of a mobile phone and what are the determining factors who make such that they are using a mobile phone? On the basis of the theoretical foundations developed by Brown and Venkatesh (2005) to verify the determining factors in intention to adopt a computer in household by American people, this study examines the determining factors in the use of mobile phone in household by Canadian people. Data were gathered from 327 Atlantic Canadian people who own a mobile phone. Data analysis was performed using the structural equation modeling software Partial Least Squares (PLS). The results revealed that about half of the variables examined in the study showed to be determining factors in the use of mobile phone by people in household.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".