Page 148 - FULL REPORT 30012024
P. 148
accuracy of the model, at 80%, and the F1 score, at 82%, both reflect a robust
overall performance. These metrics suggest that the model strikes a good
balance between sensitivity (recall) and specificity (precision), although the
precision could be enhanced to reduce the rate of false alarm. Figure 5.2
shows the comparison of percentage for each evaluation metrics in bar graph.
Evaluation Metrics
100% 90%
80% 82%
80% 75%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score
Figure 5.2 Comparison of evaluation metrics.
Next, the findings from the analysis of the survey data, structured around the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), present a comprehensive
understanding of user perspectives regarding the web application. These
findings are categorized into three key areas which is Perceived Usefulness
(PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PE), and Behavioural Intention to Use (BI).
Figure 5.3 shows the percentage average score of the three key areas in bar
chart.
Percentage Score
90% 85% 84% 85%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PU PE BI
Figure 5.3 Percentage average score of the survey’s key areas in bar chart.
131