Ten years of conflict management studies: themes, concepts and relationships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to map the intellectual structure of conflict management studies and to investigate the key themes, concepts, and their relationships of conflict management literature in the past decade. Design/methodology/approach Citation and co‐citation analysis and social network analysis were used to trace the development path of conflict management research. The data were collected by searching the SSCI databases, based on 556 journal articles which were published between 1997 and 2006, and their cited references were analyzed and profiled. Findings The paper shows that conflict management literature focuses on three key themes: workplace conflict and conflict management styles, cultural differences in conflict management, and conflict management in practice. In addition, research on group conflict and work performance has gained momentum in recent years. Originality/value The intellectual structure of conflict management literature has received little attention in spite that a large number of studies have been done on conflict management. This paper will expose researchers to a new way of profiling key themes and their relationships in conflict management area, which will help academia and practitioners understand better contemporary conflict management studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it