MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182887597 · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1469

In Cloud We Trust? Co-opting Occupational Gatekeepers to Produce Normalized Trust in Platform-Mediated Interorganizational Relationships

2021· article· en· W3182887597 on OpenAlexaff
Arvind Karunakaran

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoproductionBusinessKnowledge managementReliability (semiconductor)Context (archaeology)OutsourcingProvisioningCloud computingWork (physics)Service providerService (business)Computer sciencePublic relationsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interorganizational trust plays an important role in facilitating business relationships, especially for the organizational adoption of new services. Prior research suggests that interorganizational trust develops when the trustor has adequate confidence in the reliability of the trustee’s services. Nevertheless, reliability breakdowns are also an inevitable part of service provisioning. Such breakdowns are especially prominent and visible in the context of platform-based services. Yet platform-based services continue to be adopted and used by organizational customers. This increased adoption and use of such services despite their inconsistent reliability pose the following question. How is trust produced in platform-mediated interorganizational relationships? To examine this question, I conducted a 20-month field study of a cloud computing platform provider and its customers, focusing on the practices of trust production in the wake of reliability breakdowns. Here, I describe customer concerns about the platform’s inconsistent reliability that hampered the development of interorganizational trust. I then identify four practices of trust work enacted by the platform provider to address some of these concerns and to co-opt the occupational gatekeepers in customer organizations who are responsible for technology adoption decisions. Following this, I describe how and why these occupational gatekeepers performed justification work to rationalize the continued use of the platform despite its inconsistent reliability. Together, trust work and justification work facilitate the coproduction of interorganizational trust through normalizing reliability breakdowns as “business-as-usual” events. Synthesizing these findings, I developed a normalization model of trust production, and discuss the implications of normalized trust for platform-mediated interorganizational relationships in the digital economy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization ScienceSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207