MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099434810 · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0649

Reorganizing the Boundaries of Trust: From Discrete Alternatives to Hybrid Forms

2011· article· en· W2099434810 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

VenueOrganization Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of ReadingCarnegie Mellon University
KeywordsHeuristicProbabilistic logicComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Conjunction (astronomy)Information processingKnowledge managementSocial psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay I propose that trust be reconceptualized as a family of hybrid form concepts. I argue that trust and risk frequently co-occur and overlap. In conjunction, the concepts produce hybrid social judgments that combine elements of trust and risk. The point of overlap among trust and risk centers on the choice to be vulnerable to the decisions and actions of another party. However, the types of decision making and information processing involved represent important differences between the two types of social judgments. Whereas risk involves probabilistic decision making and more controlled information processing, trust involves heuristic decision making and more automatic information processing. I conclude with a discussion of new directions for organizational research based on the notion of hybrid forms of trust.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.278 · 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