Visualizing the Decision-Making Process in a Face-to-Face Meeting
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
The decision making process is usually one of the most critical elements of any face-to-face meeting. Participants in a group meeting follow certain procedures and guidelines for facilitating the decision making process. These include such rules as turn taking, not interrupting the consultation, and keeping suggestions or ideas clear and concise. The ultimate objective of such meetings is to arrive at decisions in a timely manner by having a diversity of opinions from as many participants as possible. We postulate that by visualizing the group dynamics during a face-to-face meeting, administrators might be able to get a better handle on the strengths and weaknesses of the group's consultation process. The end result would be to improve the overall quality of meetings. We present a visualization tool that captures and reveals the ongoing social dynamics during the decision-making process within a face-to-face and real-time meeting. Our system captures the required data through a simple and easy-to-use interface and then visualizes the outcome of the meeting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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