Normatively Speaking: Do Cultural Norms Influence Negotiation, Conflict Management, and Communication?
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
Abstract This paper elaborates a research agenda on cultural norms in communication, negotiation, and conflict management. Our agenda is organized around five questions on negotiation and conflict management, for example: How do culture and norms relate to an individual's propensity to negotiate? Or How do tightness‐looseness norms explain negotiators’ reactions to norm conformity and norm violation? And three questions on communication, for example: What individual and cultural factors lead negotiators to use miscommunication as an opportunity rather than an obstacle? Or Are there cultural differences in whether and what forms of schmoozing are normative? The present paper is based on three pillars: (a) ideas provided by the think tank participants (full list on website), (b) state of the art research and (c) the authors’ perspectives. Our goal is to inspire young, as well as, established researchers to purse these research streams and increase our understanding about the influence of cultural norms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it