MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002504052 · doi:10.1177/097135570701700101

Planning and Decision Making

2008· article· en· W2002504052 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

VenueThe Journal of Entrepreneurship · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingRational planning modelCognitionProcess (computing)ConsciousnessContext (archaeology)SociologyDecision-makingIllusionPsychologyEpistemologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyManagementEconomicsMarketingBusinessHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision making no longer assumes a rational information processor, be it in business management or entrepreneurship. Emotions and conations interact with cognition. This is the received view. But what exactly are emotion and will? True to its title, this article begins by providing a firm grounding on emotions. Next, it considers conscious will: Is it a force or a feeling or is it an illusion? Moving on, this article briefly examines the complex concept of consciousness and its role in decision making from the Euro-American and the East Indian perspectives. Is there a little man, a homunculus, who makes decisions? It then considers an existing theory of planning as a cognitive process. The context for discussion is provided by a case history of an entrepreneur. It examines and highlights the infusion of emotional determinants at each step of the decision-making process. The final section of this article describes tests of executive functions that are biased towards analytic or synthetic aspects of planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.302 · 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