Oxytocin and Collective Bargaining: Propositions for a New Research Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contributes to collective bargaining research by providing a causal theoretical biological link path between negotiation behaviors and their substantive and relational results. Specifically, the role of oxytocin is described in light of the scientific knowledge that comes from organizational neurosciences, neuroeconomics and, psychology fields. The properties of the hormone, its place in neuroeconomics research and, their links with the psychology of the collective bargaining processes are discussed to determine guidelines for a new experimental protocol meant to study decision-making processes during collective bargaining. In addition, the conceptual model of strategic negotiations serves as a theoretical framework to consolidate the propositions that can be deduced from the results of the interaction processes in collective bargaining according to two dimensions of the outcome of the negotiations. Finally, the parameters of a new experimental protocol derived from the trust game are presented for the first time. This new game presents a more ecological perspective and is developed to offer a better fit with the specific domain of collective bargaining.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.247 | 0.287 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".