phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | intention to use intelligent learning tools and independent learning ability— “The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of interaction quality and information quality of intelligent learning tools on students’ satisfaction and intention to use these tools, as well as to examine the relationship between the intention to use intelligent learning tools and students’ independent learning abilities.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “From Table 10, it is evidenced that satisfaction with tools could fully mediate the influence of interaction quality on intention to use.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The study utilized Smart-PLS 3, a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), to analyze data collected from 384 Grade 6 students in China.” | |
| transfer | from information systems research: The information-quality construct and its role as a determinant of satisfaction and use are taken from the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success and applied to primary-school learning tools— “As part of the DeLone and McLean model (D&M) of information systems success, information quality was often used to measure system quality (DeLone and McLean, 2003).” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | Willingness to use the tools raises how often students actually use them, and sustained repeated use over time creates the conditions under which independent learning abilities develop— “The cultivation of independent learning abilities couldn’t be achieved overnight, but students’ willingness to use intelligent learning tools could facilitate their continuous use, which created conditions for the development of independent learning abilities.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Because current tools are built mainly for one-way knowledge delivery (microlectures, reading materials, practice exercises, problem-solving reviews), their interaction features do not directly stimulate usage intention and instead act only by raising satisfaction— “One possible explanation for this result was that current intelligent learning tools primarily focus on knowledge dissemination through learning activities such as watching microlectures, reading learning materials, completing practice exercises, and reviewing problem-solving processes.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Interaction with classmates, teachers and the system converts into usage intention only indirectly, by first increasing students' satisfaction with the tool— “Instead, this intention was achieved by enhancing students’ satisfaction with the tools.” | mechanisms[2] |
| replicates | Radha et al. (2020); Prasetyanto et al. (2022)— “These results aligned with previous surveys conducted by Radha et al. (2020) and Prasetyanto et al. (2022), which demonstrated that the use of intelligent learning tools improved students’ independent learning abilities.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Dai et al. (2020); Alzahrani et al. (2022)— “This finding was consistent with the research conducted by Dai et al. (2020) and Alzahrani et al. (2022), who also reported that the interaction quality had the least impact on students’ willingness to use online tools.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | common method bias - operationalised as whether one factor exceeds half the variance, so 'no bias' here means 'below a conventional cut', not 'absent'— “the Harman’s single-factor test was conducted using SPSS 26 to examine the issue of common method bias. The largest factor accounted for 46.127% of the variance, which was below the threshold of 50%” | senses[0] |
| sense | information quality - defined by reference to the USER's need rather than by a property of the information, so two users of the same system can differ on it— “Information quality refers to the information provided by the system that was exactly what you need” | senses[1] |
| sense | impact - the paper uses it for two different things in one sentence: a DIRECT path that must clear significance, and an INDIRECT influence through a mediator that need not. Interaction quality has the second and not the first— “The results of the study showed that (a) intention to use intelligent learning tools had a significant and direct impact on students’ independent learning abilities; (b) interaction quality did not have a significant impact on intention to use, but information quality and satisfaction with the tools did have an impact on intention to use; (c)… | senses[2] |
| control | A PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD, NOT AN EXPERIMENTAL ARM: collinearity among the predictor constructs checked by variance inflation factor before the structural model is evaluated, against a threshold of VIF < 5 — held — rules out collinearity as a distorter of the path coefficients - correlated predictors make individual paths unstable in sign and size, so a reported structural effect could be an artefact of the predictors overlapping rather than of the model— “Before evaluating the structural model, collinearity must be examined to ensure that regression results are not affected.” | controls[0] |
| audit | interaction quality —causes→ satisfaction — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'ITQ -> ST 0.519***'; endpoints abbreviated, a path coefficient.— “Hypotheses H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Paths ITQ → ST 0.519*** ITQ → IU 0.097NS IFQ → ST 0.282*** IFQ → IU 0.165*** ST → IU 0.617*** IU → ILA 0.727***” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | interaction quality —causes→ satisfaction — The strongest exogenous path in the model, 0.519***, and it is the one that carries interaction quality's whole effect - see the unhoused row for the direct path it does NOT have.— “Hypotheses H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Paths ITQ → ST 0.519*** ITQ → IU 0.097NS IFQ → ST 0.282*** IFQ → IU 0.165*** ST → IU 0.617*** IU → ILA 0.727***” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | interaction quality —causes→ satisfaction — 0.9— “Hypotheses H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Paths ITQ → ST 0.519*** ITQ → IU 0.097NS IFQ → ST 0.282*** IFQ → IU 0.165*** ST → IU 0.617*** IU → ILA 0.727***” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | satisfaction —causes→ intention to use — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'ST -> IU 0.617***'; endpoints abbreviated, a path coefficient.— “Hypotheses H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Paths ITQ → ST 0.519*** ITQ → IU 0.097NS IFQ → ST 0.282*** IFQ → IU 0.165*** ST → IU 0.617*** IU → ILA 0.727***” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | satisfaction —causes→ intention to use — 0.9— “Hypotheses H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Paths ITQ → ST 0.519*** ITQ → IU 0.097NS IFQ → ST 0.282*** IFQ → IU 0.165*** ST → IU 0.617*** IU → ILA 0.727***” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | intention to use —causes→ independent learning ability — 0.727***, the largest coefficient in the model and the paper's headline claim.— “The results of the study showed that (a) intention to use intelligent learning tools had a significant and direct impact on students’ independent learning abilities; (b) interaction quality did not have a significant impact on intention to use, but information quality and satisfaction with the tools did have an impact on intention to use; (c)… | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | intention to use —causes→ independent learning ability — 0.9— “The results of the study showed that (a) intention to use intelligent learning tools had a significant and direct impact on students’ independent learning abilities; (b) interaction quality did not have a significant impact on intention to use, but information quality and satisfaction with the tools did have an impact on intention to use; (c)… | concept_edges[2] |
| audit | information quality —causes→ intention to use — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'IFQ -> IU 0.165***'; endpoints abbreviated, a path coefficient. | concept_edges[3] |
| differs in | information quality —causes→ intention to use — WHETHER A DIRECT PATH SURVIVES AT ALL: information quality keeps one (0.165***) while interaction quality does not (0.097, non-significant), even though interaction quality has the stronger route into satisfaction (0.519 against 0.282). Reaching the outcome and reaching it DIRECTLY are different questions and this model separates them | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | information quality —causes→ intention to use — 0.7 | concept_edges[3] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the population every result speaks for: THE SAMPLES WERE ONLY FROM ONE SCHOOL, SO THE SCOPE WAS LIMITED AND MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the interaction-quality finding: IT DID NOT SPECIFY THE TYPE OF INTERACTION BEING MEASURED, which may mask differing effects Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the claim that common method bias is not a problem here: it rests on the largest factor accounting for 46.127% of variance against a 50% threshold Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the statement that this model fits: the fit indices are compared with Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — information quality as a property of the system: it is defined as the system providing exactly what the user needs, which makes it relative to the user Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| replication | replicated | |
| no type for this | interaction quality → intention to use — A PATH THE PAPER TESTED AND DID NOT FIND: 'interaction quality did not have a significant impact on intention to use', coefficient 0.097 marked NS in the structural table. NO EDGE TYPE CAN ASSERT THAT A RELATION IS ABSENT, and this is one of the study's three headline results. Second instance in two consecutive papers - arthur2022's full mediation is the same shape from the other side. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | All respondents came from a single school, limiting representativeness. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The interaction-quality construct was not broken down by type of interaction, which may mask differing effects. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | A verdict of no bias is produced by a conventional cut, and the observed value sits under it by less than four percentage points. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Model fit is judged against cut-offs taken from another paper rather than derived for this design. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The central construct is defined by citation, in terms of what the user happens to need. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Intention to use intelligent learning tools directly predicted independent learning ability, information quality and satisfaction predicted intention to use, but interaction quality did not directly predict intention to use and instead worked through satisfaction. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Intention to use was a strong positive predictor of independent learning ability, accounting for over half its variance. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Interaction quality had no significant direct influence on intention to use. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Satisfaction with the tools fully mediated the effect of interaction quality on intention to use. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Satisfaction partially mediated the effect of information quality on intention to use. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Students rated the tools' information quality (M = 4.02) higher than their interaction quality (M = 3.88). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | 384 — valid questionnaires collected from Grade 6 students in Hangzhou, China Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | β = 0.727 — path coefficient from intention to use to independent learning ability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 46.127% — variance captured by the largest single factor in Harman's test, below the 50% common-method-bias threshold Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 0.174 — indirect effect of information quality on intention to use via satisfaction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | M = 3.82 — mean score for students' self-reported independent learning abilities Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 0.672 and 0.804 — range of HTMT values, all below 1, supporting discriminant validity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | interaction quality and information quality of intelligent learning tools (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | independent learning ability (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | satisfaction with tools (mediator) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| definition | intelligent learning tools Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | information quality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | satisfaction with tools Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | intention to use Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| concept | common method bias Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | information quality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | Harman’s single-factor test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | interaction quality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | intention to use Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | satisfaction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | independent learning ability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) | as written: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| Cronbach's alpha α | as written: Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| average variance extracted AVE | as written: average variance extracted (AVE) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio HTMT | as written: HTMT assessment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| Harman's single-factor test | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| bootstrap | as written: 5000 samples were repeatedly sampled by bootstrapping Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| variance inflation factor VIF | as written: inner VIF values Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| cross-validation (blindfolding predictive relevance) Q2 | as written: minimum Q2 value Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| coefficient of determination R2 | as written: R2 = 0.531 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| Likert scale | as written: five-point Likert scale Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| mediation analysis | as written: indirect effect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[10] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824