Accountability in permissioned blockchains: through the ledger, the code and the people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study explores how introducing a permissioned blockchain in a supply chain context impacts accountability relationships and the process of rendering an account. The authors explore how implementing a digital transformation impacts the governance of network transactions. Design/methodology/approach The authors mobilize 28 interviews and documentary analysis. The authors focus on early blockchain adopters to get an insight into how implementing a permissioned blockchain can transform information sharing, coordination and collaboration between business partners, now converted into network participants. Findings The authors suggest that implementing a permissioned blockchain impacts accountability across three levers, namely through the ledger, through the code and through the people, where these levers are interconnected. Blockchains are often valued for their ability to enable transparency through the visibility of transactions, but the authors argue that this is an incomplete view. Rather, transparency alone does not help to satisfy a duty of accountability, as it can result in selective disclosure or obfuscation. Originality/value The authors extend the conceptualizations of accountability in the blockchain literature by focusing on how accountability relationships are enacted, and accounts are rendered in a permissioned blockchain context. Additionally, the authors complement existing work on accountability and governance by suggesting an integrated model across three dimensions: ledger, code and people.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".