MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312142720 · doi:10.1109/tsmca.2004.826282

Preference Uncertainty in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

2004· article· en· W2312142720 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and Humans · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceDecision makerConflict resolutionGraphStability (learning theory)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical economicsArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningOperations researchStatisticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new preference structure is introduced into the graph model for conflict resolution. This structure can handle a decision-maker's (DM) strict preference for one state or scenario over another, equal preference for states, and uncertain or unknown preference in the comparison of two states. Built upon this preference structure, four types of solution definitions modeling human behavior under conflict are extended to accommodate uncertainty in preferences. Four distinct ways to consider uncertain preference information are identified, producing sixteen extended stability definitions. Interrelationships of these definitions within and across the four definition sets are investigated. Illustrative examples of two-DM and multi-DM conflict models are presented to show how the new solution concepts can be applied in practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.158 · 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