Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-cultural has become an important factor in national negotiations and in the international business activities of companies. In particular, the United States and China, which are recognized as central countries in various fields such as politics, economy, society, culture and diplomacy, are representative countries of intercultural studies representing the East and the West. Russia, and Canada, it is the third and fourth largest cross-cultural country in the world. The United States and China, which form Cross-cultural and multinational cultures, are the best countries to study cross-cultural studies, and are the country that is the best country to conduct negotiations because it is the nation that is leading the world negotiations. In order to maximize the quality of the research, the questionnaire was prepared by manipulating variables such as Cross-cultural value orientation and cross -cultural ability of Americans and Chinese. In order to carry out this study, Kluckhohn, F. and Strodbeck, FL (1961), G. Hofstede (1980), ET Hall (1976), Lee Je-Hong (2018, e-business Studies), Language and time of scholars such as Lee Je-Hong (2017, Journal of International Trade and Commerce) and Lee Je-Hong (2018, Korea International Commerce Review), and non-verbal communication cultural value types of space concepts. The value of the preceding research, which is considered as time factor, behavior value, communication value, organizational (group) value, authoritative value, objective fair value, uncertainty value, competitive value, enterprising value and tradition and custom value orientation, The United States and Chinese youths, and examine the effects of these factors on the types of negotiations -distributional and collective bargaining - and their impact on negotiation performance. The main objective of this study is to analyze the impacts of cross - cultural changes in these major countries on negotiations and implement Koreas global business negotiation model. The results of this study summarize the differences between Korea, the United States and China. In the previous studies, China shows a type of behavioral and positive cross-culturalism, even though it is a static country. It has a tendency to pursue the value of positive life pattern, competitive, enterprising, active, And the tendency to try to get it shows the trend of changing culture. As a result of the intercultural exchange in the previous studies and the intercultural trends in the present study, the Korean young man is a transcendental cross - cultural figure made up of orders under the hierarchical relationship. In this study, And has a communication value orientation that changes with the tendency. On the other hand, the authoritative value-orientated cross-culturalism is an authoritative and privileged consciousness, and has a Cross-cultural society that emphasizes the hierarchical relationship and social status. The United States has a cross-culturalism centering on individualism, realism, and the family. The results of this study have very low cultural value and are changing into a tradition and custom-oriented cross-cultural trend. Therefore, Korea and the United States have the same effect on the negotiation outcome while the “distributive negotiation” has no effect on the negotiation outcome. This tends to pursue WIN-WIN negotiation through coordination with the other party rather than negotiating a competitive, struggle-winning ROK-US relationship. On the other hand, in recent years, China has shown a tendency to be struggling and militant, not to lose the bargaining power, and on the other hand, it has been negotiating the bidirectional pursuit that pursues mutual benefits through distributive negotiation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".