MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W76581385

The High Cost of Lost Trust

2002· article· en· W76581385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard business review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseBusinessRank (graph theory)MarketingService (business)Point (geometry)Scale (ratio)Creole languageGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To measure this expected chain reaction in a competitive service market, we surveyed more than 6,500 employees at 76 U.S. and Canadian Holiday Inn hotels. We provided questionnaires in English, Spanish, Chinese, Creole French, and Vietnamese, and administered oral surveys to roughly 500 illiterate employees. We asked workers to rank, on a five-point scale, how closely their managers’ words and actions were aligned – what we call the managers’ behavioral integrity – by evaluating statements such as My manager delivers on promises and My manager practices what he preaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations64
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard business reviewSame topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207