Power asymmetry in conflict resolution with application to a water pollution dispute in <scp>C</scp>hina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of power asymmetry is incorporated into the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) and then applied to a water pollution dispute in China in order to show how it can provide strategic insights into courses of action. In a new definition of power asymmetry, one of the decision makers (DMs) in a conflict can influence the preferences of other DMs by taking advantage of additional options reflecting the particular DM's more powerful position. The more powerful DM may have three different kinds of power: direct positive, direct negative, or indirect. It is useful to analyze a model of a conflict without power asymmetry, and then to analyze a power‐asymmetric model. As demonstrated by analysis of the water quality controversy that took place at the border separating the Chinese provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang, this novel conflict resolution methodology can be readily applied to real‐world strategic conflicts to gain an enhanced understanding of the effects of asymmetric power.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".