From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
In a multi-method field study at a large multinational fashion company, employees used interpretable or uninterpretable algorithms to decide how many products to send to stores; under high perceived uncertainty, use of the uninterpretable model was associated with greater recommendation acceptance and task performance than use of a similarly performing interpretable model.
Scope: Universe: employees at one multinational fashion organization; unit: employee product-allocation decision; period and quantitative field-experiment denominator: not displayed; no numerical effect is asserted.
Follow-up evidence comprised 31 interviews with 14 employees—two algorithm developers, two managers, and ten decision-makers—and supports proposed mechanisms of overconfident troubleshooting and social proof around algorithm acceptance.
Scope: Universe and denominator: 31 interviews with 14 employees (2 developers, 2 managers, 10 decision-makers); unit: interview account; period: not displayed.
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (1)
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level evidence only; full text was not inspected.
- The abstract does not display the quantitative experiment's sample, allocation, outcome magnitudes, study period, or uncertainty; one fashion organization limits generalization, and the reported performance relationship is described as an association.
Source independence
ssrn-only