MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058872581 · doi:10.1145/1282100.1282179

Modeling trust in e-commerce

2007· article· en· W2058872581 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputational trustProcess (computing)Trust management (information system)Representation (politics)Trust anchorWeb of trustE-commerceExpress trustNotationKnowledge managementComputer securityWorld Wide WebReputation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-commerce is presently operating under its expected capacity, mainly because traders find it very difficult to trust one another online for trading decisions. It is therefore very important to develop an effective trust management system that assists e-commerce participants to make good trust decisions. This paper describes an approach based on users. requirements towards such a system. The benefits of this approach are threefold: First, it gives a better understanding of the components that can be used in a trust management system. Secondly, it illustrates that the components contributing to the trust making process can be different from one environment to another. Thirdly, it shows that the way one person trusts can be different from others. This approach, rather than using the same static attributes to calculate trust for everyone, uses specific attributes based on each truster's goals. Moreover, by using GRL and UCM as notations for trust modeling, this approach provides a visual representation of trust, its components and the trusting process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207