MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Challenge of Learning

2000· article· en· W2003052243 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Loewenstein, Leigh Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueNegotiation Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationKey (lock)PsychologyPhilosophy of lawPedagogyRest (music)Cognitive scienceSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This essay offers one attempt to apply insights from educational psychology to the teaching and learning of negotiation skills. First, we suggest a key reason why becoming an expert is challenging, namely, people's naive theories about negotiation need to be challenged and largely put to rest. Second, we examine how professional schools typically teach negotiation. Third and finally, we offer suggestions for improving our negotiation pedagogy. To this end, we describe and review our research on analogical learning and how it can be used in classrooms to enhance learning.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations47
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNegotiation JournalSame topicConflict Management and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207