Open for Learning: Encouraging Generalization Fosters Knowledge Transfer in Negotiation
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 We examined whether encouraging managers to attend to underlying principles in negotiation training examples rather than contextual specifics fosters openness to learning and enhances subsequent knowledge transfer to new negotiation situations. In an experimental study, 420 managers read a negotiation case study example set in a familiar or unfamiliar industry and answered either broadening or narrowing questions about an example. Managers given broadening questions about an example set in an unfamiliar industry were more open to learning than managers who were asked narrowing questions about an example set in a familiar industry. Openness to learning in turn fostered successfully applying the key negotiation principle to resolve a subsequent face‐to‐face negotiation. The findings suggest that negotiation training for professionals is unlikely to meet its intended purpose if it relies on offering managers examples set in their own industries and encouraging them to answer questions about the contextual specifics of those examples.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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