MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967057807 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1056

The timing and function of offers in U.S. and Japanese negotiations.

2007· article· en· W1967057807 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsNegotiationPsychologyConsolidation (business)Function (biology)Information exchangeJoint (building)Social psychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined the function of offers in U.S. and Japanese integrative negotiations. They proposed that early 1st offers begin information sharing and generate joint gains in Japan but have an anchoring effect that hinders joint gains in the United States. The data from the negotiation transcripts of 20 U.S. and 20 Japanese dyads supported 2 hypothesized interactions: Early offers generated higher joint gains for Japanese negotiators and lower joint gains for U.S. negotiators, and the exchange of information prior to the 1st offer generated higher joint gains for U.S. negotiators and lower joint gains for Japanese negotiators. Additional analyses supported predictions that early offer patterns represent information gathering in Japanese negotiations and information consolidation in U.S. negotiations. The results contribute to theories of negotiation and culture by showing that the use and efficacy of early offers and information exchange differ across cultures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it