MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104516671 · doi:10.1109/hicss.1991.184198

The graph model for conflicts as a negotiation support system

2002· article· en· W2104516671 on OpenAlexaff
D. Marc Kilgour, Liping Fang, Keith W. Hipel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationComputer scienceGraphStability (learning theory)Outcome (game theory)Decision support systemOperations researchManagement scienceKnowledge managementTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPolitical scienceMathematical economicsEngineeringMathematicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GMCA (graph model for conflict analysis) is a comprehensive decision support system which was developed to assist decision-makers faced with complex strategic conflicts. GMCA works by building a graph model of the conflict and then analyzing it for stability. GMCA contains algorithms for the rapid application of a wide range of stability definitions, which together can express much of the diversity of human behavior in conflicts. To illustrate some of the key features of GMCA and its use in practice, a critical decision interval in a labor-management negotiation is examined in detail. The crucial factors affecting the outcome of the negotiation are identified explicitly. By determining the relatively few stable states of the negotiation conflict, GMCA can help decision-makers make choices that direct the negotiations toward more preferable endpoints.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207