Trustworthiness Sample Clauses

Trustworthiness. Be honest. Be reliable– do what you say you’ll do. Have the courage to do the right thing. Build a good reputation. Be loyal– stand by your family, friends, school, and country. Don’t deceive, cheat or steal. Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule. Be tolerant of differences. Use good manners. Be considerate of the feelings of others. Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone, or use bad language. Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements.

Trustworthiness. People react favorably when they believe the police are benevolent, caring, and sincerely trying to do what is best.* Legitimacy flows from procedural justice. When community members feel that the police are treating them in a procedurally just manner, they are more likely to view the police as a legitimate authority and a trusted partner. When that happens, residents are more inclined to accept and follow police directions and also to assist and partner with the police in community policing and problem-solving efforts. That is why the dual concepts of procedural justice and legitimacy are so fundamental to the practice of community policing. “In essence, legitimacy and procedural justice are measurements of the extent to which members of the public trust and have confidence in the police, believe that the police are honest and competent, think that the police treat people fairly and with respect, and are willing to defer to the law and to police authority.”† Community members make their own judgments about whether officers’ actions, including their uses of force, are “legitimate.” Police agencies must understand and acknowledge these judgments, because the success of an agency depends in large part on the public’s willingness to cooperate and work with the police. These principles should be evident in policy, department systems and processes, and training. It is important that agencies ensure their policies and training are consistent with one another and that both are reinforced in daily practice. This is especially important with regard to police encounters with persons with behavioral health issues and police use of force. Ideally, policies will include language that enables the department to create indicators and mechanisms for assessing community policing performance. Personnel evaluations, for example, should be based on the community policing activities that are expected of an officer. First-line supervisors should establish clear expectations for community interactions and problem solving on a daily basis. Officer performance measurement systems should include indicators of activities that support community policing such as the time an officer spends working with community members to remedy a problem that facilitates crime or that detracts from quality of life in a neighborhood. A useful resource when exploring policy and procedure changes is the community oriented policing checklist. Two leading researchers in the field of community policing deve...

Trustworthiness be honest; don’t deceive, cheat, or steal; be reliable

Trustworthiness. People tended to return relatively more to ingroup members, compared with outgroup members and strangers (b = 0.95; P = 0.001). People also tended to return more in the common knowledge condition, compared with the unilateral knowledge condition (b = 1.24; P < 0.001), regardless of their partner’s group membership; there was not a statistically significant interaction (b = 0.43; P = 0.18). Thus, our findings on trustworthiness replicated the findings of trust behavior.

Trustworthiness. The attribute of a person or organization that provides confidence to others of the qualifications, capabilities, and reliability of that entity to perform specific tasks and fulfill assigned responsibilities. Unauthorized Access: Occurs when a user, legitimate or unauthorized, accesses a resource that the user is not permitted to use. Unauthorized Disclosure: An event involving the exposure of information to entities not authorized access to the information. User: An individual, or system process acting on behalf of an individual, authorized to access an information system. User-ID: Unique symbol or character string used by an information system to identify a specific user. Vulnerability: Weakness in an information system, system security procedure(s), internal controls, or implementation that could be exploited or triggered by a threat source.

Trustworthiness. This is, probably, the most difficult requirement to define. The event understanding must be reliable, and precise. For example: It is obvious that there should be a minimum set of famous people that the system should recognize (from all kind of sources). It must be able to recognize current and former presidents or prime ministers of every country but, where is the limit? How can be determined the set of famous people that should be automatically recognized? It is clear that a system unable to recognize the presence of the British prime minister in a video is not meeting the requirements. The same reasoning applies to places, remarkable dates, monuments, etc. In the online processing scenario, the suggested content must be related with the input of the journalist. If the system returns content that has nothing to do with the journalist text, the system will be useless and the users will lose confidence and be reluctant to use it.

Trustworthiness. The use of peer review is recommended to provide an external check of the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). This research project was conducted with input from a dissertation committee, whose members collectively have extensive experience in qualitative and feminist research. I kept a written record of all meetings. The credibility of the findings depends on researcher self- awareness and reflexivity as an instrument of data collection and analysis (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1993). I kept a research journal to clarify my biases and assumptions as well as ideas about the research, as recommended by ▇▇▇▇ (1994). The process of member checking can be problematic. Sandelowski (1996) posits that the researcher and participant both have investments in the research that may shape the process of member checking. Social norms about politeness and social desirability may influence what participants communicate. Participants may not recognize their story in the abstract, scientific summary of the findings. The researcher has the challenge of deciding what synthesis of the data should be presented. For these reasons, I did not ask participants for feedback on the analysis, although they have indicated an interest in reading the results and a summary of the findings was made available to them at the completion of the study. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2013) identifies two broad threats to validity in a qualitative study: researcher bias, and reactivity. Bias is the researcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lenses that influences what data are collected, how they are collected and how they are analyzed. While it is impossible to detach the researcher’s bias from the study, it is possible to own and acknowledge it. My work with women in labor and women who have experienced violence have made me more sensitive to how these elements influence women’s lives, their embodied experiences and their births. I care deeply about the ethics of the provider-patient relationship when the patient is in a vulnerable state. I am interested in supporting the normal physiology of birth because I have seen the iatrogenic effects of the over-medicalization of healthy pregnancies. I became aware of how these beliefs shaped my data collection, and in working with the dissertation committee, was able to identify how they were shaping the analysis. For example, in the initial readings of the data, the issue of medicalization was very prominent for me, and it seemed that everything rela...

Trustworthiness. The chatbot offers what the user needs. This dimension is purely content based, on in- and output of the chatbot. Safety: Everything concerning data security and storage of user inputs. Usability: Ease of use of the chatbot, convenience related: Everything concerning the reachability and the way the chatbot works.

Trustworthiness. On average, participants have scored performance scales for their own training a little higher than for the other (For self, M = 3.71, SD = 1.10; For other, M = 3.64, SD = .737). Purpose scales got an average score of 4.2 (SD = .732) for self training and 3.76 (SD = .742) for the other training. The process scales got an average score of 3.8 (SD = .759) for self training against 3.65 (SD = .877) for the other training. In the comparison between the use of self training and the use of the other training, the Paired T-test analysis didn't show any significant results for any of the three scales: Performance, Purpose and Process (p > 0.6).