MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793671233 · doi:10.5539/mas.v12n4p69

Building a Trust Model for Social Network

2018· article· en· W2793671233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osama Rababah, Bassam Alqudah

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial network (sociolinguistics)InteractivityInternet privacyQuality (philosophy)The InternetTrustworthinessBusinessVariety (cybernetics)Relation (database)Computer scienceSocial mediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The revolution in information technology and the use of the internet changed the lifestyle of people. A major change was in the way of shopping. Companies started to offer their products online using social network s and people started to buy from the internet. Using social network has many benefits to the users starting from exploring a large variety of products to the very first way of ordering and the availability of the products 24 hours a day. One of the main problems that is found in using a social network is trusting the using social network social network s. the student concern about trusting to buy from the using social network social network s. Trust is a major concern for the merchant too; his concern is how to gain the student trust and to keep it. Many factors play a major role in acquiring the student trust in the online market. These factors rely on the social network characteristics such as design, interactivity and age and other factors vary from the social network quality, service quality, security policy of the social network, the privacy policy, the guarantee offered, the satisfaction of the user, the ease of use, the risk aversion and the culture factors. This study introduces the trusting affecting factors mentioned above and their effect on the trustworthiness factors (ability, benevolence, and integrity) a trust model has been built to show the relation between these factors and the trustworthiness factors.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207