Bibliographic record
Abstract
In large electronic marketplaces populated by buying and selling agents, repeated transactions between traders may be rare. This makes it difficult for buying agents to judge the reliability of selling agents, discouraging participation in the market. A variety of systems have been proposed to help traders to find trustworthy partners; however, most proposed systems suffer from multiple vulnerabilities that might be exploited by unscrupulous parties. In this paper, we propose a new model, wherein abstract units are used to represent trust in much the same way that units of money represent value. In a manner similar to money, 'trunits' flow during transactions. A trader's trunit balance determines if they are trustworthy for a given transaction. Faithful execution of a transaction results in a larger trunit balance, permitting the trader to engage in more transactions in the future---a built-in economic incentive for honesty. We demonstrate that for a wide range of realistic market parameters, the Trunits mechanism ensures that honest sellers profit more than dishonest sellers. We also discuss how intrinsic properties of our model make it secure from many of the attacks to which other systems are vulnerable. In summary, we present our Trunits model as the basis for modeling trust in electronic marketplaces, useful as buying agents develop algorithms to intelligently choose trustworthy sellers for their business partners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".