MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186741084 · doi:10.29173/irie334

The Automated Production of Reputation: Musing on bots and the future of reputation in the cyberworld

2013· article· en· W2186741084 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefano De Paoli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationRelevance (law)Production (economics)Context (archaeology)PhenomenonComputer scienceInternet privacyReputation systemComputer securityPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reputation is considered as the summary of a person's relevant past actions in the context of a specific community and is a concept which has gained huge relevance in the cyberworld as a way of building trust. Increasingly, however, reputation is awarded to users after they have carried out repetitive, mechanical or trivial actions. This opens the space to a phenomenon which we can define as the automated production of reputation: reputation produced by the means of software technologies known as bots that can easily automate repetitive online actions. In this paper the phenomenon of automated production of reputation is preliminarily defined and presented using three different empirical examples: Massively Multiplayer Online Games, the social network twitter and the reputational hub Klout. The paper also discusses some of the foreseeable negative consequences of the automated production of reputation and in particular the risks related to the loss of trust in online communities.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207