A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH FOR SHARING SEMANTIC WEB TRUST RATINGS
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
In the context of the Semantic Web, it may be beneficial for a user (consumer) to receive ratings from other users (advisors) regarding the reliability of an information source (provider). We offer a method for building more effective social networks of trust by critiquing the ratings provided by the advisors. Our approach models the consumer's private reputations of advisors based on ratings for providers whom the consumer has had experience with. It models public reputations of the advisors according to all ratings from these advisors for providers, including those who are unknown to the consumer. We then combine private and public reputations by assigning weights for each of them. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach is robust even when there are large numbers of advisors providing large numbers of unfair ratings. We show that we can effectively model the trustworthiness of advisors even when the population of providers grows increasingly large and discuss how our approach is beneficial in modeling providers. As such, we present a framework for sharing ratings of possibly unreliable sources, of value as users on the Semantic Web attempt to critique the trustworthiness of the information they seek.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it