MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constraining a Principal’s Choice: Outcome versus Behavior Contingent Agency Contracts in Representative Negotiations

2004· article· en· W2131326349 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNegotiation Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal (computer security)NegotiationOutcome (game theory)Principal–agent problemAgency (philosophy)MicroeconomicsEconomicsSocial psychologyBusinessActuarial sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyLawManagementComputer scienceCorporate governanceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Agency theory describes the viability of outcome and behavior contingent contracts in principal–agent transactions. This article proposes that a principal’s choice between the two contract forms in a representative negotiation is constrained by the conditions that led a principal to employ an agent. Six of these conditions — expertise, emotional strain, the principal’s preferred engagement strategy, zone of possible agreement, communal relationship norms, and repeated interactions between principals — are reviewed and summarized in testable propositions. Specifically, the six conditions are proposed to underscore the viability of behavior versus outcome contingent contracts in serving the principal’s substantive and relationship-based interests.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.304 · 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