Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trust is at once an elusive, imprecise concept, and a critical attribute that must be engineered into e-commerce systems. Trust conveys a vast number of meanings, and is deeply dependent upon context. The literature on engineering trust into e-commerce systems reflects these ambiguous meanings; there are a large number of articles, but there is as yet no clear theoretical framework for the investigation of trust in e-commerce. E -commerce, however, is predicated on trust; indeed, any e-commerce vendor that fails to establish a trusting relationship with their customers is doomed. There is a very clear need for specific guidance on e-commerce system attributes and business operations that will effectively promote consumer trust. To address this need, we have conducted a meta-study of the empirical literature on trust in e-commerce systems. This area of research is still immature, and hence our meta-analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative. We identify the major theoretical frameworks that have been proposed in the literature, and propose a qualitative model incorporating the various factors that have been empirically found to influence consumer trust in e-commerce. As this model is too complex to be of practical use, we explore subsets of this model that have the strongest support in the literature, and discuss the implications of this model for Web site design. Finally, we outline key conceptual and methodological needs for future work on this topic.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it