Combined strategic and tactical negotiation methodology for resolving complex brownfield conflicts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An innovative negotiation methodology for strategic and tactical decision making is proposed for resolving conflicts in brownfield redevelopment. At the strategic level, the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution is systematically employed for determining a potential overall agreement, or set of resolutions, that is politically possible given the competing interests of the decision makers involved in a brownfield redevelopment project. At the tactical level, a possible strategic solution can be studied in depth using utility theory to determine trade-offs or concessions needed to reach a mutually acceptable detailed solution. Also, the proposed negotiation methodology can take into account the attitudes of negotiators and investigates the impact of the negotiators' attitudes on the outcome of negotiations at both levels of negotiation. The design of a negotiation decision support system is put forward to allow the proposed negotiation methodology to be conveniently applied to actual disputes.
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it