MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035608373 · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2020.100039

Thinking about Trust: People, Process, and Place

2020· review· en· W3035608373 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePatterns · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeb of trustExpress trustComputational trustPhenomenonEmpowermentProcess (computing)Trust anchorBlind trustEnforcementBusinessPsychologyKnowledge managementPublic relationsComputer scienceSocial psychologySociologyInternet privacyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceReputation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This brief paper is about trust. It explores the phenomenon from various angles, with the implicit assumptions that trust can be measured in some ways, that trust can be compared and rated, and that trust is of worth when we consider entities from data, through artificial intelligences, to humans, with side trips along the way to animals. It explores trust systems and trust empowerment as opposed to trust enforcement, the creation of trust models, applications of trust, and the reasons why trust is of worth.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.326 · 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