An Impact of Negotiation Profiles on the Accuracy of Negotiation Offer Scoring System? Experimental Study
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
In this paper an impact of the party's negotiation profile on the misperception of the preferential information provided to the negotiating parties is studied.In particular, the problems with determining an adequate and preferentially correct negotiation offer scoring system is analyzed, when the parties are supported in their decision analyses by means of the SAW technique.In the analyses we use the negotiation data from bilateral negotiation experiments conducted by means of the Inspire negotiation support system.To determine the negotiators' profiles the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument was used, which allows to describe their general negotiation approach using two dimensions of assertiveness and cooperativeness.The accuracy of scoring systems was defined as the extent to which the negotiator's individual scoring system (agent's system) is concordant to the preferential information provided by the negotiator's superior (principal's system) in the form of verbal and graphical descriptions, and measured by means of ordinal and cardinal accuracy indexes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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