MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397806853

On the Construction of Trust Metrics

2013· article· en· W2397806853 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Barzilai

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmVulnerability (computing)Computer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Variable (mathematics)Identity (music)Subject (documents)Computational trustComputer securityKnowledge managementSocial psychologyPsychologyMathematicsWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We do not share information, actions, strategy, or plans with agents (human or otherwise) we do not trust, because they may use it against us or pass such information voluntarily or unknowingly to others who may use it against us. We may also have doubts about the identity of the recipient of our trust, his motivation and relations with others, his reliability (hardware, software, personal, or organizational) and vulnerability to other agents who may harm us. Since trust is an important consideration in determining the degree of cooperation and collaboration among agents, it is one of the elements of coalition forming — a game-theoretic subject. In addition, since trust is not a physical variable, the problem of constructing metrics and measurement scales for non-physical variables must be taken into account.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.017
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207