Blockchain-Enabled Trust Building for Managing Consensus in Linguistic Opinion Dynamics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To manage consensus in opinion dynamics models (ODMs), removing bias from agents' interactions and considering their willingness are critical. It can be accomplished by providing a secure mechanism that does not disclose agents' identities and opinions in their interactions, eliminating the impact of opinion similarity on trust building. To build trust and consensus opinion, we propose a linguistic ODM based on the Blockchain technology. This model allows agents' opinions to be expressed using <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Z</i> -numbers, as opposed to regular ODMs with numerical opinions. Agents are encouraged to modify their initial opinions in response to a minimum cost consensus model. Willingness of agents to accept or refuse the suggested modifications is realized through a Blockchain regime to avoid bias. The regime, however, must be supported by a trust-building mechanism to persuade agents to alter their opinions. To this end, we propose a Blockchain-enabled trust-building mechanism to improve agents' trust and guide them toward a consensus opinion. Following a sensitivity analysis of the underlying assumptions in the developed model, the proposed ODM is tested for its efficiency and validity.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it