Multi-layer cognitive filtering by behavioral modeling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the absence of legal enforcement procedures for the participants of an open e-marketplace, trust and reputation systems are central for resisting against threats from malicious agents. Such systems provide mechanisms for identifying the participants who disseminate unfair ratings. However, it is possible that some of the honest participants are also victimized as a consequence of the poor judgement of these systems. In this paper, we propose a two-layer filtering algorithm that cognitively elicits the behavioral characteristics of the participating agents in an e-marketplace. We argue that the notion of unfairness does not exclusively refer to deception but can also imply differences in dispositions. The proposed filtering approach aims to go beyond the inflexible judgements on the quality of participants and instead allows the human dispositions that we call optimism, pessimism and realism to be incorporated into our trustworthiness evaluations. Our proposed filtering algorithm consists of two layers. In the first layer, a consumer agent measures the competency of its neighbors for being a potentially helpful adviser. Thus, it automatically disqualifies the deceptive agents and/or the newcomers that lack the required experience. Afterwards, the second layer measures the credibility of the surviving agents of the previous layer on the basis of their behavioral models. This tangible view of trustworthiness evaluation boosts the confidence of human users in using a web-based agent-oriented e-commerce application.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it