Using Toulmin's Argumentation Model to Enhance Trust in Analytics-Based Advice Giving Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecommerce websites increasingly provide predictive analytics-based advice (PAA) , such as advice about future potential price reductions. Establishing consumer-trust in these advice-giving systems imposes unique and novel challenges. First, PAA about future alternatives that can benefit the consumer appears to inherently contradict the business goal of selling a product quickly and at high profit margins. Second, PAA is based on mathematical models that are non-transparent to the user. Third, PAA advice is inherently uncertain, and can be perceived as subjectively imposed in algorithms. Utilizing Toulmin's argumentation-model, we investigate the influence of advice-justification statements in overcoming these difficulties. Based on three experimental studies, in which respondents are provided with the advice of PAA systems, we show evidence for the different roles Toulmin's statement-types play in enhancing various trusting-beliefs in PAA systems. Provision of warrants is mostly associated with enhanced competence beliefs; rebuttals with integrity beliefs; backings both competence and benevolence; and data statements enhance competence, integrity, and benevolence beliefs. Implications of the findings for research and practice are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".