The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR): Reflections on Three Decades of Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental design and inherent capabilities of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) to address a rich range of complex real world conflict situations are put into perspective by tracing its historical development over a period spanning more than thirty years, and highlighting great opportunities for meaningful future expansions within an era of artificial intelligence (AI) and intensifying conflict in an over-crowded world. By constructing a sound theoretical foundation for GMCR based upon assumptions reflecting what actually occurs in reality, a fascinating story is narrated on how GMCR was able to expand in bold new directions as well as take advantages of many important legacy decision technologies built within the earlier Metagame Analysis and later Conflict Analysis paradigms. From its predecessors, for instance, GMCR could take advantage of option form put forward within Metagame Analysis for effectively recording a conflict as well as preference elicitation techniques and solution concepts for defining chess-like behavior when calculating stability of states from the realm of Conflict Analysis. The key ideas outlined in the paper underlying the current and projected capabilities of GMCR include the development of four different ways to handle preference uncertainty in the presence of either transitive or intransitive preferences; a wide range of solution concepts for describing many kinds of human behavior under conflict; unique coalition analysis algorithms for determining if a given decision maker can fare better in a dispute via cooperation; tracing the evolution of a conflict over time; and the matrix formulation of GMCR for computational efficiency when calculating stability and also theoretically expanding GMCR in new directions. The basic design of a Decision Support System for permitting researchers and practitioners to readily apply the foregoing and other advancements in GMCR to tough real world controversies is discussed. Inverse engineering is mentioned as an AI extension of GMCR for computationally determining the preferences required by decision makers in order to reach a desirable state, such as a climate change agreement in which all nations significantly cut back on their greenhouse gas emissions. Although GMCR has been successfully applied to challenging disputes arising in many different fields, a simple climate change negotiation conflict between the US and China is utilized to explain clearly key concepts mentioned throughout the fascinating historical journey surrounding GMCR.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".