MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trust, Loyalty, and ECommerce

2010· book-chapter· en· W2487019157 on OpenAlexaff
Leonard I. Rotman

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantFiduciaryLoyaltyVitalityCuriosityInstitutionBusinessValue (mathematics)E-commercePublic relationsMarketingPolitical scienceLawPsychologySocial psychologyDutyComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-commerce has experienced a meteoric rise from technological curiosity to substantive institution in little more than a decade of meaningful existence. The annual value of its global transactions is measured in the trillions of dollars. However, the unique nature of e-commerce has created a host of challenges for those seeking to ensure its continued vitality. The most significant of these challenges is the maintenance of user trust. To this point, e-commerce has tended to look to traditional methods of regulation to govern its participants and their transactions. However, the unique character of e-commerce and the concerns it generates warrant consideration of non-traditional approaches to regulation as well. This chapter suggests that fiduciary law, with its focus on maintaining the integrity of certain important relationships in contemporary society, could be a useful tool in e-commerce regulation by facilitating the trust and loyalty that is foundational to its success.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207