Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, the topic of interorganizational trust has attracted attention from many researchers. Thanks to their cumulative efforts, trust has been established as an important governance mechanism and as an enabler of collaboration between organizations. However, this literature has relied on strong assumptions. While these assumptions have proved useful, an important question is to what extent they should be revisited in order to advance our understanding of interorganizational trust. This symposium brings together four papers that revisit core assumptions underlying the literature on interorganizational trust. From interpersonal to interorganizational trust: The role of indirect reciprocity Presenter: Bart Vanneste; INSEAD How contracts influence both trust and distrust: An information-processing view Presenter: Fabrice Lumineau; Purdue U. Trust in the balance: Asymmetric antecedents of interorganizational trust Presenter: Bill McEvily; U. of Toronto Presenter: Akbar Zaheer; U. of Minnesota Presenter: Darcy Kathryn Fudge Kamal; Chapman U.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".