MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123311380 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1996.565440

A new perspective an coalition analysis

2002· article· en· W2123311380 on OpenAlexaff
D. Marc Kilgour, Keith W. Hipel, Liping Fang, Xiaoyong Peng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsActuaToronto Metropolitan UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflict analysisPerspective (graphical)Conflict resolutionOutcome (game theory)Computer scienceOperations researchSimilarity (geometry)GraphManagement sciencePolitical scienceTheoretical computer scienceMathematical economicsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new perspective on the study of coalition formation is presented. This novel approach to coalition analysis is based on the impact of the coalition on the outcome of the conflict instead of on the similarity of the decision makers' (DMs) preferences. Measures of the tendency to form coalitions by a subset of DMs in a conflict are defined within the framework of the graph model for conflict resolution. An environmental conflict is used to illustrate the application of this new decision technology.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.003

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207