MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W83455642 · doi:10.17705/1cais.01709

ICIS Panel Summary: Should Institutional Trust Matter in Information Systems Research?

2006· article· en· W83455642 on OpenAlexaff
David Gefen, Paul A. Pavlou, Izak Benbasat, Harrison McKnight, Katherine Stewart, Detmar W. Straub

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLas vegasPanel discussionPerspective (graphical)Library scienceState (computer science)Political scienceSociologyManagementComputer scienceBusinessLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarizes and expands the panel on "Should Institutional Trust Matter in Information Systems Research?" that was presented during the ICIS 2005 Conference in Las Vegas. The panel was co-chaired by Paul A. Pavlou of the University of California and by David Gefen of Drexel University. The panelists were Izak Benbasat of the University of British Columbia, Harrison McKnight of Michigan State University, Katherine Stewart of the University of Maryland, and Detmar W. Straub of Georgia State University. There were about 150 people attending the panel and taking part in the lively discussion that pursued. Due to the interest the panel aroused, this paper expands on the topics discussed and presents them in a much broader perspective in a set of appendices.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0240.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207