MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrative Complexity in Face-to-Face Negotiations Between the Chiapas Guerrillas and the Mexican Government

2005· article· en· W1984811522 on OpenAlexaff
Josέ Liht, Peter Suedfeld, Andi Krawczyk

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationGovernment (linguistics)Face (sociological concept)Face-to-facePsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyLawSocial scienceEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the first time, integrative complexity (IC) levels were examined in the verbatim transcription of a face-to-face negotiation (between the Chiapas guerrillas and the Mexican government in the spring of 1995). Results showed that: (1) such interactive exchanges can be scored reliably for IC; (2) daily mean IC levels were positively related to negotiation progress (as judged by the press); (3) afternoon negotiation sessions tended to show lower IC, presumably because of fatigue; (4) government negotiators’ comments were effective in influencing the IC of the other parties, but not vice versa; and (5) the government's representatives obtained the highest IC scores, the mediators almost as high, and the insurgents were lowest. Various empirical and theoretical issues related to the use of IC scoring are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207