MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065596530 · doi:10.2308/jis.2006.20.1.1

Information Assurance Seals: How They Impact Consumer Purchasing Behavior

2006· article· en· W2065596530 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

VenueJournal of Information Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingBusinessAntecedent (behavioral psychology)MarketingConsumer behaviourEmpirical researchAdvertisingSample (material)TrustworthinessInternet privacyComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public accounting firms and other independent assurance providers have developed and marketed web assurance services resulting in a seal as an indicator of compliance. Academic research finds that seals potentially meet some of the most acute consumer concerns, but that consumers have inadequate understandings about the seals, and low regard for them. This study extends the research on the role of information assurance seals as an antecedent of trust by examining the use of seals on the eBay auction site. The study analyzes a sample of transactions in which buyers acted with their own money, and had time to learn about various signals and consider their strengths. The transactions are examined to see whether presence of a seal on the seller's web page made a significant difference on actual consumer purchasing behavior. Empirical tests found significant associations between the presence of seals and consumer purchasing behavior in both auction and posted-price contexts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.012
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.301 · 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