Improvisation and Teaching Negotiation: Developing Three Essential Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The notion of an adaptable negotiator, who can respond to any situation he or she encounters, resonates with every negotiation expert. Unexpected things happen in negotiation, and negotiators must be able to adapt in fleet and effective ways. Dealing with the unexpected, responding “in the moment,” and adapting effectively to sudden changes — these are the skills of an improvisational artist, and they are effective skills for negotiators to learn. How can improvisational skills be taught to negotiation students so that they will be able to draw upon these skills in the heat of a negotiation or mediation? By bringing together teachers of improvisation in various disciplines, we explored how improvisation is currently applied and taught in theater, business, and psychotherapy. We then developed some ideas about ways in which teachers of negotiation might begin to incorporate improvisation as part of the negotiation lesson plan.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".