MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338086902

Trust Metrics for Services and Service Providers

2011· article· en· W2338086902 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab M. Aljazzaf, Mark Perry, Miriam A. M. Capretz

Bibliographic record

VenueRUNE (Research UNE) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService providerComputer scienceService (business)Service level objectiveService delivery frameworkService designKnowledge managementInternet privacyComputer securityBusinessMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is as significant a factor for successful online interactions as it is in offline communities. Trust is an important factor that is used as a criterion for service selection. There is a need to know information about services and service providers to establish trust and identify their trustworthiness. Most trust studies focus on trust establishment for services without clearly identifying trust information for services and service providers. Services and service providers traverse many domains with different properties and requirements. Identifying a unified trust information (trust metrics) for such an open environment is a challenge. This paper proposes a unified trust metrics classification for services and service providers. The proposed trust metrics can be extended and used in an open environment or within specific domains to establish trust for services and service providers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRUNE (Research UNE)Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207