New Problem-Solving Scholarship: An Historical Tale with a Happy Ending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The teaching of negotiation in law, business, and other professional schools has greatly increased over the last quarter-century. The author sets the stage for a review of two negotiation texts and an educational video by opening with an historical overview of the development of negotiation pedagogy, which has been informed by scholars from many different academic disciplines. Teaching negotiation in law schools (which have a long tradition of the “case method” style of teaching, which often encourages an energetic but adversarial approach to problem solving) is still relatively new. The two texts and the educational video examined in this essay offer lessons in a “wide angle” approach to negotiation, which includes (among many other useful topics): ideas fundamental to theory and practice; social and emotional considerations; the role of cultural and gender difference; relationships between principals and representatives; differences among various types of ADR; and applications of various forms of negotiation in many different contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".