MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4067053 · doi:10.29173/irie339

Do online privacy policies and seals affect corporate trustworthiness and reputation?

2013· article· en· W4067053 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yohko Orito, Kiyoshi Murata, Yasunori Fukuta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsReputationTrustworthinessInternet privacyReputation managementBusinessPrivacy policyAffect (linguistics)Personally identifiable informationOnline businessInformation privacyWork (physics)Privacy by DesignPublic relationsComputer securityComputer scienceThe InternetPolitical sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we attempt to examine the effectiveness of online privacy policies and privacy seals/security icons on corporate trustworthiness and reputation management, and to clarify how young Japanese people evaluate the trustworthiness of B to C e-business sites in terms of personal information handling. The survey results indicate that posting online privacy policies and/or privacy seals/security icons by B to C e-businesses does not work for creating trust in business organisations by consumers actively. Instead, existing good name recognition and/or general reputation can engender trust and, increasingly, better their reputation in terms of personal information use and protection.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207