Cited by 270Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInnovative Educational TechnologiesTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Antecedents and consequences of cloud computing adoption in education to achieve knowledge management

Arpaci, Ibrahim·2017·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.024

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arpaci, I.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
70
Pages
382-390
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2573237164
Cited by
270
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 9
FWCI
51.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Bursa Uludag University - AVESIS (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Innovative Educational Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
cloud computing adoption, knowledge management, education, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, innovativeness, education and training, knowledge sharing, knowledge storage, knowledge production, knowledge discovery, undergraduate students, technology acceptance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review