ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Training and Technology Acceptance of ChatGPT in University Students of Social Sciences: A Netcoincidental Analysis.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A two-step structural equation modeling and explainable machine learning framework for understanding university students' adoption of generative AI: balancing intrinsic motivations and perceived risks.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Navigating Ambivalence: Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Student Engagement in Engineering Education.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Modeling teacher education students' adoption of large language models through an extended technology acceptance framework.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Can ChatGPT Boost Students' Employment Confidence? A Pioneering Booster for Career Readiness.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzes the perception and usage of ChatGPT based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Conducting reticular analysis of coincidences (RAC) on a convenience survey among university students in the social sciences, this research delves into the perception and utilization of this artificial intelligence tool. The analysis considers variables such as gender, academic year, prior experience with ChatGPT, and the training provided by university faculty. The networks created with the statistical tool "CARING" highlight the role of perceived utility, credibility, and prior experience in shaping attitudes and behaviors toward this emerging technology. Previous experience, familiarity with video games, and programming knowledge were related to more favorable attitudes towards ChatGPT. Students who received specific training showed lower confidence in the tool. These findings underscore the importance of implementing training strategies that raise awareness among students about both the potential strengths and weaknesses of artificial intelligence in educational contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.