MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103226802 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.489

Social Identity and Reciprocity in Online Gift Giving Networks

2013· article· en· W2103226802 on OpenAlexaff
Timm Teubner, Florian Hawlitschek, Marc T. P. Adam, Christof Weinhardt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnonymityReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Internet privacyIdentity (music)The InternetComputer scienceValue (mathematics)Collective identityPrivate information retrievalAdvertisingSocial psychologyWorld Wide WebPsychologyComputer securityBusinessAestheticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to traditional channels, Internet transactions are intrinsically untrustworthy in nature. We investigate the impact of social identity and reciprocity on trusting and cooperative behavior in dynamic gift giving networks by means of an online laboratory experiment, with a main focus on value transfers among the users individually and directed towards the group. In this study, we display profile pictures and full names of the experiment participants in order to abrogate anonymity. Moreover, we provide the possibility for private peer-to-peer interaction, in contrast to mere contributions to the entire, undifferentiated group. We find indications for the efficacy of both dimensions as well as for an interaction effect. Our study has implications for the design of information systems where mutual trust between private users forms the basis for market interaction (e.g. ride-, car or apartment sharing platforms).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFrench-language works237,207