Role of Consumer Associations in the Governance of E-commerce Consumer Protection
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
Despite the proliferation of e-commerce and the growing discussion of how to govern this sector, governance for e-consumer protection is an under-researched area. This study is the first of its kind to employ both quantitative (e-survey) and qualitative (interviews) research to examine e-consumer protection from the view of all three e-governance sectors: e-consumers, e-retailers, and other stakeholders (government, industry, and consumer associations). In particular, this study employed a governance perspective, rather than other perspectives, such as marketing. Focus was aimed toward the tri-sectors' perceptions of six roles of consumer organizations during the e-consumer protection e-governance process. Victoria, Australia was used as a working example. Results suggest that the governance process for e-commerce in Victoria may be compromised due to the lack of overall agreement among the three governance sectors about the role of consumer associations. The tri-sector e-governance model is more appropriate in explaining e-consumer protection than models that eschew the governance process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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