MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764308304 · doi:10.1177/0002764217734265

Are Repeat Buyers in Cryptomarkets Loyal Customers? Repeat Business Between Dyads of Cryptomarket Vendors and Users

2017· article· en· W2764308304 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInternational Centre for Comparative Criminology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer baseBusinessVendorLoyaltyMarketingLoyalty business modelThe InternetAdvertisingCommodityCommerceService (business)FinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations involved in the sale of illicit products and services have been described as small, ephemeral, and local rather than global. Given their limited size, such organizations are often unable to attract large pools of customers, but it has been noted that organizations that manage to build a small but loyal customer base are likely to be more secure and to incur fewer risks of arrest and victimization. There has been little previous research into the loyalty of repeat buyers on Internet markets but a new technological innovation, cryptomarkets, makes it now more possible to track transactions between vendors and their customers. This article looks at the level of loyalty of cryptomarket repeat buyers by tracking their purchases over time. We find that, on average, customers make 60% of their purchases from the same vendor and that providing increased amounts of information to customers increases the loyalty of cryptomarket vendors’ customer base.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · 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