Decision Making Planning: The Meta-decision Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizational problems that demand decision-making require planning about their own decision-making process: the meta-decisions. We propose that the decisions about the process itself can be organized around three key activities: (1) diagnosis of meta-decision context and evaluation of meta-decision problem, (2) selection / planning of the meta-decision strategies and (3) meta-decision strategies implementation. This paper aims to focus on the content of the first two key activities. We develop guidelines for these two activities intended for generic decision making process and we illustrate these guidelines with examples and graphs. It is hoped that by following them a decision maker can optimize the process of decision making and thus achieve higher-quality decisions with less time and less resources invested. Future studies will need to be developed in order to empirically analyze the meta-decisions taken during a decision-making process and improve the theoretical framework here proposed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".