MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146200298 · doi:10.1109/pst.2011.5971957

Trust bootstrapping services and service providers

2011· article· en· W2146200298 on OpenAlex
Zainab M. Aljazzaf, Miriam A. M. Capretz, Mark Perry

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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBootstrapping (finance)Computer scienceReputationComputational trustService providerService (business)Trust anchorTrust management (information system)Selection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)Computer securityKnowledge managementBusinessMarketingArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is an important factor for successful online communication. Trust has been used as a criterion for service selection. Most trust and reputation studies assume a system where trust and reputations already exist. However, it is important to initialize trust rates for new services, which have no rating history, the so-called trust bootstrapping process. Trust bootstrapping assists the requestors in their service selection decision. Trust bootstrapping is the initial step in trust building process. Trust bootstrapping is important for reliable interaction with services and service providers that are new to the system. This paper proposes an approach for trust bootstrapping services and service providers. The proposed solution follows the trust principles and addresses a number of trust challenges in the literature. Experiment study is conducted and the results are analysed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207