Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trust is critical to the economic, political, and social coordination and cooperation underpinning society, yet we find ourselves in a perceived “crisis of trust,” particularly in institutions such as government, business, the media, and NGOs. But what is trust, and why is it thought to have declined in recent years? This chapter considers the problem and the nature of trust in both an interpersonal and an institutional (collective) form, asserting that trust involves a three-part relationship between a trustor, a trustee, and some domain of behavior wherein the trustee’s behavior is perceived to encapsulate the interests of the trusting party. Choosing to trust is not a risk-free endeavor for the trusting party, as it involves the acquisition of (usually imperfect) information about the trustworthiness of a trustee that is then used to form a justified true belief about the trustee’s trustworthiness as a basis of a trustor’s decision about whether to act in a given situation. By clarifying the notion of trust in its interpersonal and institutional forms, this chapter lays the foundation for considering the relationship between trust and distributed ledgers, including blockchains, in the following chapter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".