Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artifact selection decisions typically involve the selection of one from a number of possible/candidate options (decision alternatives). In order to support such decisions, it is important to identify and recognize relevant key issues of problem solving and decision making (Albers, 1996; Harris, 1998a, 1998b; Jacobs & Holten, 1995; Loch & Conger, 1996; Rumble, 1991; Sauter, 1999; Simon, 1986). Sauter classifies four problem solving/decision making styles: (1) left-brain style, (2) right-brain style, (3) accommodating, and (4) integrated (Sauter, 1999). The left-brain style employs analytical and quantitative techniques and relies on rational and logical reasoning. In an effort to achieve predictability and minimize uncertainty, problems are explicitly defined, solution methods are determined, orderly information searches are conducted, and analysis is increasingly refined. Left-brain style decision making works best when it is possible to predict/control, measure, and quantify all relevant variables, and when information is complete. In direct contrast, right-brain style decision making is based on intuitive techniques—it places more emphasis on feelings than facts. Accommodating decision makers use their non-dominant style when they realize that it will work best in a given situation. Lastly, integrated style decision makers are able to combine the left- and right-brain styles—they use analytical processes to filter information and intuition to contend with uncertainty and complexity.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".