MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415711321 · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102204

Cultures of trust and trust in science

2025· article· en· W4415711321 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine T. Kwantes, Saba Ghadiri, Suzanne McMurphy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrustworthinessPerceptionPublic trustExpress trustProxy (statistics)Organizational culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultures of trust are characterized by norms that promote trusting behaviors and by the expectation that others will act in trustworthy ways. Trust in science is embedded within cultures, as perceptions of the trustworthiness of science, and scientists, are shaped by cultural contexts. Organizations often serve as the visible "face" of science, such that the presence or absence of organizational or institutional cultures of trust within scientific institutions functions as a proxy through which public trust in science is evaluated. Thus, in addition to personal characteristics, understanding trust in science requires attention to the interplay of societal, organizational, and institutional cultures that collectively shape how science and its representatives are perceived.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.425 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychologySame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207