Measures for Dealing with Competence and Integrity Violations of Interorganizational Trust at the Corporate and Operating Levels of Organizational Hierarchy
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
abstract We examine how partners in an interorganizational relationship can repair violated trust, and if that is impossible, how they can preserve the collaborative relationship. We also consider under what circumstances exit from the relationship is the only viable option. We propose that the effectiveness of legalistic and non‐legalistic measures in response to a trust violation is a function of the hierarchical level at which the violation occurred (corporate vs. operating), the character of the violation (competence vs. integrity), the frequency and severity with which it occurred, the organizational context in which boundary spanners are embedded, and the degree of dependence between the partners. Based on these factors, we explore how the way in which violation of trust is dealt with at one hierarchical level might affect trust at the other level. Our theoretical model reveals that prior findings on trust repair in inter‐personal context may not hold in the interorganizational 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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