The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reputation systems
Open accessAbstract
T he Internet offers vast new opportunities to interact with total strangers. These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable. But they also involve risk. Is the advice of a self-proclaimed expert at expertcentral.com reliable? Will an unknown dotcom site or eBay seller ship items promptly with appropriate packaging? Will the product be the same one described online?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
30 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 5 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the overall rate of successful transactions remains astonishingly high for a market as”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
“ripe with the possibility of largescale fraud and deceit”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 5. Kollock, P. The production of trust in online markets. In Advances in Group Processes, vol. 16, E. Lawler, M. Macy, S. Thyne, and H. Walker, Eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1999; see also www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/f aculty/kollock/papers/online_trust.htm.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first is that people may not bother to provide feedback at all.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Such premiums are observed in auctions in auctions of coins and computer chips on eBay [3,6,7].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] 3. Bajari, P. and Hortacsu, A. Winner's curse, reserve prices, and endogenous entry: Empirical insights from eBay auctions; see www.stanford.edu/ ~bajari/wp/auction/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [6] 6. Lucking-Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., and Reeves, D. Pennies from eBay: The determinants of price in online auctions; see www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/reiley/papers/PenniesFromEBay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7] 7. Houser, D. and Wooders, J. Reputation in auctions: Theory and evidence from eBay; see bpa.arizona.edu/~jwooders/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third is the difficulty of ensuring honest reports.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reputation systems seek to establish the shadow of the future to each transaction by creating an expectation that other people will look back on it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Game-theory analysis demonstrates that there are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of reputation systems when participants are allowed to start over with new names [4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second difficulty in distributing feedback stems from the lack of portability from system to system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, the expectation of reciprocity or retaliation in future interactions creates an incentive for good behavior.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. Axelrod, R. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their theoretical and practical difficulties, it is reassuring that reputation systems appear to perform reasonably well.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At eBay, for example, a stream of buyers interacts with the same seller.They may never buy an item from the seller again, but by sharing their opinions about the seller via the Feedback Forum, they construct a meaningful history of the seller.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If buyers do behave this way, the sellers' reputations will affect their future sales.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this promise, significant challenges remain in the operating phases of such systems: eliciting, distributing, and aggregating feedback.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Over time, high-quality sellers would desert the market.Eventually, only the lowest-quality sellers would remain, a dynamic economist George Akerlof memorialized as the”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“market for lemons”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Akerlof, G. The market for 'lemons': Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84 (1970), 488-500. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even then, fear of retaliatory negative feedback or simply a desire to avoid further unpleasant interactions may keep a dissatisfied buyer quiet.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systems that rely on the participation of large numbers of individuals accumulate trust simply by operating effectively over time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, sellers with stellar reputations may enjoy a premium on their services; some users may be willing to pay for the security and comfort of high-quality services.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of building trust, a boost in the quantity of information compensates for a significant reduction in its quality.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In particular, newcomers (those with no feedback) should always be distrusted until they have somehow paid their dues, either through an entry fee or by accepting more risk or worse prices while developing their reputations.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These simple numerical ratings fail to convey important subtleties of online interactions; for example, Did the feedback come from low-value transactions?What were the reputations of the people providing the feedback?”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet services operate on a vastly larger scale”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“than Main Street and permit virtually anonymous interactions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Long-lived entities that inspire an expectation of future interaction;”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today's reputation systems, by contrast, shouldn't work in theory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Use of feedback to guide trust decisions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With clear reputation markers, low-quality sellers get lower prices, leaving a healthier market with a variety of prices and quality of service.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to the Internet, such questions were answered, in part, through personal and corporate reputations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strangers lack known past histories or the prospect of future interaction, and they are not subject to a network of informed individuals who would punish bad and reward good behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable.But they also involve risk.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Capture and distribution of feedback about current interactions (such information must be visible in the future); and”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Internet can vastly accelerate and add structure to the process of capturing and distributing information.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One party could blackmail another, threatening to post negative feedback unrelated to actual performance.At the other extreme, in order to accumulate positive feedback, a group of sellers might collaborate and rate one another positively, artificially inflating their individual reputations.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future buyers, lacking personal histories with particular sellers, may still base their buying decisions on a sufficiently extensive public history.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When agreeing to be rated is optional (such as when registering as a retailer at bizrate.com), doing so is likely an indication of higher-quality services, even before ratings are available.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if all reporting were complete and honest, users would find it virtually impossible to utilize the torrents of information they receive on other participants, given the lack of satisfactory summary statistics.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness; the future casts a shadow on only a single online arena, not on many.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Buyers provide and rely on feedback in reputation systems.
“provide and rely on feedback-isolated interactions take on attributes of long-term relationships.”
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
“The high rate of successful transactions is attributerd by eBay to its reputation system, called the Feedback Forum.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Resnick et al. (2000) stated that the lack of reputation portability is problematic as ''[l]imited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness'' (p. 48).”
From In Stars We Trust – A Note on Reputation Portability Between Digital Platforms (2022) · cites this paper as Resnick et al. 2000
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The growth of e-auctions and other forms of e-commerce is based, to a considerable degree, on reputation and trust 5-10 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Past research has argued that reputation systems and user-generated reviews may have the primary purpose of allowing users to learn more about each other before engaging in any interactions or transactions, acting as a monitoring and policing system [5,66,67].”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [67]
Citations
Cites
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Nielsen, R. P., & Axelrod, R. (1985) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257983 · Cited by 6,517
The Winner's Curse, Reserve Prices, and Endogenous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions
Bajari, P., Hortaçsu, A., & Hortacsu, A. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593721 · Cited by 1,041
PENNIES FROM EBAY: THE DETERMINANTS OF PRICE IN ONLINE AUCTIONS*
Lucking‐Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., & Reeves, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x · Cited by 550
(1999) · Advances in group processes · Cited by 426
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (2000) · Advances in group processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(2000)17 · Cited by 247
How not to build an online market: the sociology of market microstructure
Kollock, P., & Braziel, E. R. (n.d.) · Advances in Group Processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(06)23011-x
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,701–1,800 of 2,164
A continuous rating model for news recommendation
Gao, H., Chen, D., Wang, G., et al. (2014) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551514542065 · Cited by 1
“Social connections are an ideal vehicle for disseminating news items since many people read and share similar interests with their friends therefore read similar news items [19, 20].”
BackgroundKobayashi, M., Itō, T., & Ando, S. (2012) · Web Intelligence and Agent Systems An International Journal · doi:10.3233/wia-2012-0229 · Cited by 1
“Auctions are simple scoring mechanisms in which buyers rate their sellers, and sellers sometimes rate buyers [16].”
Digital trust and reputation: Applications and security issues
Liu, Y. (2012) · Journal of Media Literacy Education · Cited by 1
Defragmentation and Mashup: Ludic Mashup as a Design Approach
Lenhart, I. (2013) · Digital Games Research Association Conference · Cited by 1
A Novel Leader based Reputation Approach for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Sakthivel, T., Vijaybhanu, S., & RM.Chandrasekaran, R. C. (2012) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/7258-0297 · Cited by 1
Network Formation Among Selfish Energy-Constrained Wireless Devices
Nama, H., Mandayam, N. B., & Yates, R. D. (2008) · doi:10.1109/infocom.2008.126 · Cited by 1
“Further, reputation-systems [15] approaches can be brought to bear to ensure that nodes in the network do not deviate from their pairwise-Nash behavior and not forward data that other nodes route through them.”
BackgroundKuo, W., & Chang, C.-W. (2012) · EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking · doi:10.1186/1687-1499-2012-188 · Cited by 1
Identification of Shill Bidding for Online Auctions Using Anomaly Detection
Kołaczek, G., & Balcerzak, S. (2015) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16211-9_12 · Cited by 1
Applying the HYRIWYG Incentive Mechanism in a Recommender System
García, A. C. B., & Ciuffo, L. N. (2005) · doi:10.1109/wi.2005.33 · Cited by 1
Towards a Novel and Timely Search and Discovery System Using the Real-Time Social Web
Phelan, O., McCarthy, K., & Smyth, B. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37401-2_72 · Cited by 1
“Other work has focussed on applying user-level reputation systems to social search contexts [10] and recommender systems [15].”
BackgroundButter, F. A. G. D., & Joustra, J. (2015) · International Journal of Business and Management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v11n1p1 · Cited by 1
“Here the reputation mechanism to enhance trustfulness looks like that used by virtual marketplaces in online shopping (see e.g. Resnick et al., 2000; Brown and Morgan, 2006; Saeedi et al., 2015).”
BackgroundEvolution of Cooperative Behavior in C2C market: Effect of Reputation Management System
Yamamoto, H., Ishida, K., & Ohta, T. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/4-431-26925-8_5 · Cited by 1
What Might Macneil Have Said about Using eBay?
Wheeler, S. (2013) · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-26927-0_3 · Cited by 1
“…gossip network where an individual buyer is substituting personal knowledge of a seller or a personal recommendation from someone they know who has dealt with the seller for a much larger volume of recommendations from strangers (Resnick, Zeckhauser, Friedman and Kuwabara 2000; Van Swol 2006).”
Weitzel, L., de Oliveira, J. P. M., Boito, F. Z., dos Santos, H. D. P., Nobre, J. C., Lutz, J. A. F., dos Anjos, J. C. S., Yamashita, M., Sklar, M. M., Astiazara, M. V., et al. (2010) · Cadernos de Informática · Cited by 1
장익훈, Moon, J., Choe, Y., & 이철 (2012) · The e-Business Studies · doi:10.15719/geba.13.5.201212.293 · Cited by 1
Supporting Evolution in Learning Information Agents
Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2011) · Cited by 1
Trading Discount for Reputation?
Xie, H. L., Ma, R. T. B., & Lui, J. C. S. (2016) · doi:10.1145/2896377.2901500 · Cited by 1
“, Alibaba, Amazon, eBay, etc), as it helps buyers make informed decisions in choosing trustworthy sellers [3].”
BackgroundLes liens faibles du crime en ligne
Dupont, B. (2016) · Réseaux · doi:10.3917/res.197.0109 · Cited by 1
Reputation-Based Collusion Detection with Majority of Colluders
Hur, J., Guo, M., Younsoo, P. A. R. K., et al. (2016) · IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems · doi:10.1587/transinf.2015edp7318 · Cited by 1
Applying Game Theory in Securing Wireless Sensor Networks by Minimizing Battery Usage
Asadi, M., Agah, A., & Zimmerman, C. (2014) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4789-3.ch004 · Cited by 1
Poston, R. S., & Stafford, M. R. (2010) · Advances in end user computing series/Advances in end user computing (AEUC) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-687-7.ch015 · Cited by 1
Privacy and Trust Management Schemes of Wireless Sensor Networks
Shaikh, R. A., d’Auriol, B. J., Lee, H., et al. (2010) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-701-5.ch013 · Cited by 1
Internet Exchange and Forms of Trust
Anthony, D. L., Kitts, J. A., Masone, C., et al. (2010) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-901-9.ch016 · Cited by 1
“Recent years have seen the rapid proliferation of online reputation and recommender systems, which rely on individuals sharing information about their experiences with individual sellers (Cheshire & Cook, 2004; Resnick et al, 2000).”
BackgroundHarnessing the swarm: technological applications of collective intelligence
Sadedin, S., & Duéñez‐Guzmán, E. A. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511980381.020 · Cited by 1
“Reputation systems, representing collective intelligence of a community about individuals, are used to enforce social standards on websites (Resnick et al. , 2000).”
MethodChallenges and Opportunities of Consumer Empowerment in Online Reputation Management
Vollero, A., & Siano, A. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-3954-6.ch001 · Cited by 1
Social approaches to trust-building in web technologies
Ulivieri, F. (2006) · doi:10.1109/seccmw.2005.1588296 · Cited by 1
Semantically Enhancing Recommender Systems
Bettencourt, N., Silva, N., & Barroso, J. (2016) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52758-1_24 · Cited by 1
Security Aspects in Resource Management Systems in Distributed Computing Environments
Adamski, M., Kurowski, K., Mika, M., et al. (2017) · Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences · doi:10.1515/fcds-2017-0015 · Cited by 1
Reconsidering online reputation systems
Wilson, A. N., & Paoli, S. D. (2018) · Abertay Research Portal (Abertay University) · doi:10.18420/ecscw2018_12 · Cited by 1
“Resnick et al. (2000) suggest that users not only reciprocate but also retaliate.”
BackgroundInfluentialReputation Computational Model to Support Electricity Market Players Energy Contracts Negotiation
Rodriguez-Fernandez, J., Pinto, T. D. O., Silva, F. J. G., et al. (2018) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94779-2_12 · Cited by 1
Support Cloud SLA Establishment Using MDE
Hamlaoui, M. E., Fissaa, T., Laghouaouta, Y., et al. (2018) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97719-5_12 · Cited by 1
Authenticating Cluster Head and Detecting Malicious Node in VANET Using Feedback
Pariselvam, S., Anbarasi, Anubama, G., & Sankavi, G. (2019) · International Conference on System, Computation, Automation and Networking (ICSCAN) · doi:10.1109/icscan.2019.8878746 · Cited by 1
Hazarika, B., Mousavi, R., & Rea, A. I. (2020) · Human Systems Management · doi:10.3233/hsm-190709 · Cited by 1
Zlto: Increase and Track Positive Behavior using Secure Blockchain Technology
Gu, M., Meulen, A. V. D., Appolis, K., et al. (2019) · International Journal for Information Security Research · doi:10.20533/ijisr.2042.4639.2019.0099 · Cited by 1
“Reputation flow or re-allocation is a mechanism by which reputation changes for each judge during an evaluation cycle [5].”
BackgroundDTN Routing: Taxonomy and Design.
Spyropoulos, T., Rais, R. N. B., Turletti, T., et al. (2011) · Cited by 1
When Reputation Meets Subsidy: How to Build High Quality On Demand Service Platforms
Fang, Z., & Huang, J. (2020) · doi:10.1109/infocom41043.2020.9155351 · Cited by 1
“, see [8, 9, 10] and references therein), there still lacks a systematic understanding on the strategic behaviors and incentives of workers and customers in a reputation system.”
BackgroundA reputation-based framework to support dynamic car-pooling1,2
Postorino, M. N., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2020) · Intelligenza Artificiale · doi:10.3233/ia-190037 · Cited by 1
For a Dynamic Web Services Discovery Model for Open Ecosystems of Software Providers
Rabelo, R. J., Ruiz, H. A., & Cancian, M. H. (2020) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_7 · Cited by 1
Rolling out trust management to cloud-based service ecosystems
Ruohomaa, S., & Kutvonen, L. (2013) · Cited by 1
SureRepute: Reputation System for Crowdsourced Location Witnesses
Figueiredo, R., Eisa, S., & Pardal, M. L. (2022) · IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA) · doi:10.1109/nca57778.2022.10013629 · Cited by 1
“This can be achieved by keeping track of a reputation for each user [3].”
BackgroundInfluentialIdentifying Colluding Actors in Social Communities by Reputation Measures
Cotronei, M., Giuffré, S., Marcianò, A., et al. (2022) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24801-6_25 · Cited by 1
Lin, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, X., Li, X., & Yao, W. (2023) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · doi:10.1142/s0218213023500513 · Cited by 1
Fu, Y., Wang, J., Lu, L., Tang, Q., & Zhang, S. (2024) · Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering · doi:10.1631/fitee.2300156 · Cited by 1
“Reputation systems have been widely studied in several domains such as e-commerce (Resnick et al., 2000; Resnick and Zeckhauser, 2002), the Internet (Buchegger and Le Boudec, 2002), ad-hoc wireless networks (Buchegger and Le Boudec, 2003a, 2003b), and peer-to-peer networks (Xiong and Liu, 2004).”
BackgroundInvestigating How Gilds Were Employed on Reddit
Lambert, C., Jain, Y., Saha, K., et al. (2024) · ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/3678884.3681916 · Cited by 1
“Gift-giving also builds reputation, another important concept in social computing literature shown to be an incentive for good behavior [16], a way to clearly signal desired behaviors [13], and a mechanism for users to build trust and encourage engagement [17].”
A Moral Hazard Detection Framework: Reinforcing Trust in ORAN
Ibrahim, K., Chraiti, M., & Ghrayeb, A. (2025) · IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference · doi:10.1109/wcnc61545.2025.10978718 · Cited by 1
Techniques for Enabling Efficient Location Discovery
Sanford, J. F., Potkonjak, M., & Slijepcevic, S. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1839-9_6 · Cited by 1
ATTRACTING WHOM ? - MANAGING USER -GENERATED - CONTENT COMMUNITIES FOR MONETIZATION
Ma, L., Kesten, O., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
Pan, Y. (2016) · International Journal of Services Technology and Management · doi:10.1504/ijstm.2016.079988 · Cited by 1
An Incentive Mechanism Design in E-Trade Evaluation Systems
Murakata, K., & Matsuo, T. (2010) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15405-8_15 · Cited by 1
A Novel Reputation Computing Model
Zhang, Y., Li, Q., & Lin, Z. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25283-9_21 · Cited by 1
Improving Trustworthiness in E-Market Using Attack Resilient Reputation Modeling
Sharma, N. K., Gaur, V., & Bedi, P. (2014) · International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies · doi:10.4018/ijiit.2014070104 · Cited by 2
Addressing False Identity Attacks in Action-Based P2P Social Networks with an Open Census
Qin, S., Silaghi, M. C., Matsui, T., et al. (2013) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies (WI-IAT) · doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2013.149 · Cited by 1
“A reputation system maintains scores inferred from other’s opinions for participants [12], [13].”
BackgroundEl rol de la usabilidad percibida sobre la confianza en las subastas online
Torres‐Moraga, E., & Barra, C. (2011) · Revista de Administração de Empresas · doi:10.1590/s0034-75902011000500006 · Cited by 1
A framework for spotting anomaly
Liang, S., Zeng, J., Li, C., et al. (2010) · International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD) · doi:10.1109/fskd.2010.5569320 · Cited by 1
Credibility of web applications
Guimarães, S., Pereira, A. C. M., Silva, A., et al. (2011) · International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES) · doi:10.1145/2077489.2077494 · Cited by 1
“It is important to explain that, despite the problems of reputation systems [18], it is necessary to use feedback information to measure the user’s opinion of a service.”
BackgroundInfluentialIncentivizing anonymous “peer-to-peer” reviews
Venkitasubramaniam, P., & Sahai, A. (2008) · Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing · doi:10.1109/allerton.2008.4797625 · Cited by 1
P2P Reputation Management Scheme Using a Cryptographic Protocol
Sivananda., C. K. (2012) · IOSR Journal of Engineering · doi:10.9790/3021-021020108 · Cited by 1
de Oliveira, M. C., Mazzon, J. A., & Paulo, S. (2013) · Cited by 1
Computational Trust and Reputation Management
Trček, D. (2017) · SpringerBriefs in information systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62374-0_3 · Cited by 2
Addressing Concept Drift in Reputation Assessment
Player, C., & Griffiths, N. (2018) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/xpus2749 · Cited by 1
Design Space of Online Bandwidth Trading Markets for P2P Streaming Systems
Mostafavi, S. (2019) · Journal of Communications Technology Electronics and Computer Science · doi:10.22385/jctecs.v26i0.294 · Cited by 1
“The design of reputation systems has been extensively studied in different contexts (e.g. electronic-commerce, adhoc networks, etc.) [24, 41].”
BackgroundNarang, N. K., & Kar, S. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3377283.3377288 · Cited by 1
Incorporating Reputation System in Blockchain-Based Distributed Auctions
Omori, R., & Kishigami, J. J. (2019) · IEEE Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE) · doi:10.1109/gcce46687.2019.9015634 · Cited by 1
“The three requirements for operating a reputation system advocated by Resnic [4] are shown below and were adopted as the requirements for the system developed in this research.”
MethodA Reputation Model Considering Buyer Subjectivity and Product Return Behavior
Bai, J. P., & Liu, Y. (2019) · International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Aided Education (ICISCAE) · doi:10.1109/iciscae48440.2019.221581 · Cited by 1
“It has been shown that the reputation information can play a significant role when buyers in making the decision whether to trust a specific object or not [15].”
BackgroundIncentivizing Contribution in DecentralizedCommunity Information Systems
de Lange, P., Słupczyński, M., & Klamma, R. (2020) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3366424.3385758 · Cited by 1
“The history of past behavior of an individual in a community will heavily influence the expectation that peers have of future interactions [33].”
BackgroundOblivion of online reputation: how time cues improve online recruitment
Novotny, A., & Spiekermann, S. (2017) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2017.10003869 · Cited by 1
““A reputation system collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about [market] participants’ past behaviour” (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundEftekhar, S. M. (2020) · Cited by 1
Privacy Concerns and Mobile App Store
Mak, B. L., & Jin, L. (2021) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management · doi:10.1142/s021987702150019x · Cited by 1
Reputation Management Through Online Feedbacks in E-Business Environment
Kumar, V., & Pradhan, P. (2017) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5187-4.ch029 · Cited by 1
A Consumer Decision-Making Model in M-Commerce
Zheng, W., & Jin, L. (2017) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2599-8.ch007 · Cited by 1
Elmurngi, E. I., & Gherbi, A. (2022) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-6303-1.ch052 · Cited by 1
Steur, A. (2022) · Schwerpunkt Business Model Innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-38202-5_6 · Cited by 1
Winkelmann, A., & Bertling, J. (2011) · Cited by 1
Three essays on the economics of information systems
MacKie–Mason, J. K., & Jian, L. (2010) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 1
Fine-Grained Recommendation Systems for Service Attribute Exchange
Staite, C., Bahsoon, R., & Wolak, S. J. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10383-4_24 · Cited by 1
“[11] argues reputation systems are inadequate, due to the subtle differences between trust and reputation [12].”
BackgroundThe influence of sellers and the intermediary on buyers' trust in C2C electronic marketplaces
Meents, S. (2009) · Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) · Cited by 1
DOES YOUR DATABASE ENGENDER TRUST
Rollier, B., & Fowler, D. C. (2002) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
Transnational Business and Relational Contracting 2.0Preprint
Dietz, T. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2549020 · Cited by 1
A Novel Factoid Ranking Model for Information Retrieval
Ni, Y., & Wang, W. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72909-9_35 · Cited by 1
Fundamental Limits on a Model of Privacy-Trust Tradeoff: Information Theoretic Approach
Murthy, G. R. (2006) · International journal of network security · doi:10.6633/ijns.200611.3(3).03 · Cited by 1
“On the contrary, incentive and monitoring mechanisms [2], including reputation systems [4, 10], suggest that a highly trusted user can get more benefits.”
BackgroundTrust and Reputation in Peer-to-Peer Systems
Despotovic, Z. (2018) · Encyclopedia of Database Systems · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1225 · Cited by 1
A Computational Reputation Model in P2P Networks Based on Trust and Distrust
Lin, W. S., Yang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11534310_54 · Cited by 1
Mathematical Modeling of Insurance Mechanisms for E-commerce SystemsPreprint
Xie, H. L., & Lui, J. C. S. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.03212 · Cited by 1
“In an E-commerce system, it is possible to purchase products from a seller whom the buyer has never transacted with, and this seller may not even be trustworthy[19].”
BackgroundInfluentialA Network-Agnostic and Cheat-Resistant Framework for Multiplayer Online Games
Kabus, P. (2009) · Technischen Universität Darmstadt · doi:10.26083/tuprints-00001391 · Cited by 1
Quality assessment of service providers in a conformance-centric Service Oriented Architecture
Shercliff, G. (2009) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · Cited by 1
ReCoP: Um Modelo para Reputação em Comunidades de Prática
Cruz, C. C. P., da Motta, C. L. R., & Santoro, F. M. (2007) · doi:10.5753/cbie.sbie.2007.103-112 · Cited by 1
“Sistemas de reputação e confiança [Resnick et al. 2000] [Josang et al. 2006] apresentam mecanismos que auxiliam os próprios usuários a criarem relacionamentos confiáveis na Internet, permitindo que eles avaliem a atuação dos indivíduos, identifiquem as reputações avaliadas perante a opinião da…”
BackgroundBeacon - A Rapidly Deployable Cellphone Network
Crane, P. K. (2012) · Otago University Research Archive (University of Otago) · Cited by 1
Challenge Problem: Agent-Mediated Decentralized Information Mechanisms
Parkes, D. C. (2002) · Cited by 1
Access control in decentralized, distributed systems
Browne, J. C., & Kane, K. (2007) · Cited by 1
Indirect Reciprocity in Policy-Based Helping Experiments
von der Weth, C., Böhm, K., Burghardt, T., Hütter, C., & Yue, J. Z. (2009) · European Conference on Web Services · doi:10.1109/ecows.2009.7 · Cited by 1
Network Court Protocol and Malicious Node Conviction
Li, N., & Lee, D. (2007) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Conference on Network Protocols · doi:10.1109/icnp.2007.4375869 · Cited by 1
Simulating data dissemination techniques for local reputation systems
Schlosser, A., & Voß, M. (2005) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.1145/1082473.1082679 · Cited by 1
Study on Trust Model Based on Field Theory in C2C Market
Gao, J., & Yang, Y. (2007) · International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/wicom.2007.865 · Cited by 1
An Adaptive Trust Management in Distributed Systems Using Reputation and Uncertainty
Wu, X. W., & Qian, P. (2009) · International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI) · doi:10.1109/bmei.2009.5305860 · Cited by 1
Scheduling Peers Based on Credit Construction Period in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Hou, L., Duan, H., & Wu, J. (2008) · IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) · doi:10.1109/icpads.2008.42 · Cited by 1
Social network-based trust computing in P2P environments
Liu, F., & Ding, Y. (2008) · World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation · doi:10.1109/wcica.2008.4593253 · Cited by 1
“If a malicious peer can easily register as new user, the trust evaluation suffers from the newcomer attack [42].”
BackgroundA Personalized Group Trust Management System for Collaborative Services
Li, X., & Zhao, H. (2008) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks · doi:10.1109/icccn.2008.ecp.178 · Cited by 1
“Some surveys for reputation and trust management systems are given in [12], [13], [14].”
BackgroundCooperative resource bartering on internet overlay for urban-scale smart sensing applications
Koo, S. G. M. (2007) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2007.4414147 · Cited by 1
Evidence-Based Access Control for Ubiquitous Web Services
Khantal, N., Helander, J., Zorn, B. G., et al. (2008) · Cited by 1
Brücker-Cohen, J., Bennett, M., Agamanolis, S., et al. (2004) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/985921.986114 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 45-48
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2337430557
- Cited by
- 2,190
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 134
- FWCI
- 145.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9977999)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- reputation systems, online trust, online interaction, e-commerce, peer reputation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
