A conceptual architecture for a combined negotiation support system
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
In a combined negotiation in e-commerce, the user is interested in many goods or services and consequently engages in many negotiations at the same time. The negotiations are independent of each other, whereas the goods or services are typically interdependent. Using currently available negotiation technology, the user conducts each negotiation separately, and has the burden of coordinating and reconciling them. The authors aim to provide a Combined Negotiation Support System (CNSS) to help the user conduct all the negotiations at the same time. The CNSS will enable the user to control and monitor the progress of the negotiations, and will make sure that the specified dependencies are respected. The architecture of the CNSS relies on workflow technology and on negotiating software agents. The paper starts by presenting the problem and giving an overview of the envisioned CNSS. Then, undertaking concepts and technology are discussed, and the proposed architecture is detailed. The paper concludes with a discussion of related work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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