TRUST-RELATED ARGUMENTS IN INTERNET STORES: A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION
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
This paper discusses the trust related issues and arguments (evidence) Internet stores need to provide in order to increase consumer trust. Based on a model of trust from academic literature, in addition to a model of the customer service life cycle, the paper develops a framework that identifies key trust-related issues and organizes them into four categories: personal information, product quality and price, customer service, and store presence. It is further validated by comparing the issues it raises to issues identified in a review of academic studies, and to issues of concern identified in two consumer surveys. The framework is also applied to ten well-known web sites to demonstrate its applicability. The proposed framework will benefit both practitioners and researchers by identifying important issues regarding trust, which need to be accounted for in Internet stores. For practitioners, it provides a guide to the issues Internet stores need to address in their use of arguments. For researchers, it can be used as a foundation for future empirical studies investigating the effects of trust-related arguments on consumers ’ trust in Internet stores.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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