Is Firm Trust Essential in a Trusted Environment? how Trust in the Business Context Influences Customers
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
Customers are influenced not only by how much they trust a company and its representatives but also by how much they trust the broader context in which the market exchange is taking place. In this article, the authors test two rival sociological perspectives regarding the influence of customer trust in the broader context. One perspective proposes that trust in the context replaces trust in individual firms and their representatives. This view suggests that firm/representative trust is not always critical, especially for customers with high trust in the context. An alternative perspective is that trust in the context fosters and legitimates trust in firms and their representatives. This view implies that firm/representative trust is a necessary mediator of the influence of trust in the context. The authors test predictions based on both perspectives, using empirical results from two studies implemented in two countries. The results from both studies support the proposition that trust in firms and their representatives is a necessary mediator of trust in the broader context.
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 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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