MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117527090 · doi:10.1109/dexa.2005.193

Trust Judgment in Knowledge Provenance

2006· article· en· W2117527090 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceAggregate (composite)Knowledge managementPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge provenance is an approach to determining the validity and origin of Web information by means of modeling and maintaining information sources, information dependencies, and trust structures. This paper explores trust structures in social networks and constructs a trust judgment model for knowledge provenance. Trust judgment includes: trust assessment (to assess trust degree) and trust decision (to make decision of either trusting or distrusting). We reveal a general structure of trust decision, from which (i) the threshold of trust degree to make decision of trusting and (ii) a measure of importance of trust judgment situation are derived. Regarding trust assessment using social network, a major concern is how to aggregate friends' opinions. We propose two new methods: (1) to find most compatible solution to all opinions; (2) to request friends one by one until a set of consistent opinions is obtained. They are close to people's thinking patterns

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207