Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online product recommendation agents are becoming increasingly prevalent on a wide range of websites. These agents assist customers in reducing information overload, providing advice to find suitable products, and facilitating online decision-making. Consumer trust in recommendation agents is an integral factor influencing their successful adoption. However, the nature of trust in technological artifacts is still an under-investigated and not well understood topic. Online recommendation agents work on behalf of individual users (principals) by reflecting their specific needs and preferences. Trust issues associated with online recommendation agents are complicated. Users may be concerned about the competence of an agent to satisfy their needs as well as its integrity and benevolence in regard to acting on their behalf rather than on behalf of a web merchant or a manufacture. This study extends the interpersonal trust construct to trust in online recommendation agents and examines the nomological validity of trust in agents by testing an integrated Trust-TAM (Technology Acceptance Model). The results from a laboratory experiment confirm the nomological validity of trust in online recommendation agents. Consumers treat online recommendation agents as " social actors" and perceive human characteristics (e.g., benevolence and integrity) in computerized agents. Furthermore, the results confirm the validity of Trust-TAM to explain online recommendation acceptance and reveal the relative importance of consumers' initial trust vis-¨¤-vis other antecedents addressed by TAM (i.e. perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use). Both the usefulness of the agents as "tools" and consumers' trust in the agents as "virtual assistants" are important in consumers' intentions to adopt online recommendation agents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".