Dyadic attribution model: A mechanism to assess trustworthiness in virtual organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language as a symbolic medium plays an important role in virtual communications. In a primarily linguistic environment such as cyberspace, words are an expressed form of intent and actions. We investigate the functions of words and actions in identifying behavioral anomalies of social actors to safeguard the virtual organization. Social actors are likened to “sensors” as they observe changes in a focal individual's behavior during computer‐mediated communications. Based on social psychology theories and pragmatic views of words and actions in online communications, we theorize a dyadic attribution model that helps make sense of anomalous behavior in creative online experiments. This model is then tested in an experiment. Findings show that observation of the behavioral differences between words and actions, based on either external or internal causality, can offer increased ability to detect the compromised trustworthiness of observed individuals—possibly leading to early detection of insider threat potential. The dyadic attribution model developed in this sociotechnical study can function to detect behavioral anomalies in cyberspace, and protect the operations of a virtual organization.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".