Revisión sistemática exploratoria: la generación de confianza en mediación [An exploratory systematic review: Trust building in mediation]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estudios recientes han manifestado la presencia de una relación entre el rapport y el éxito de la mediación. Esto es, la construcción de una relación de comprensión, empatÃa y confianza. Dado el alcance que la investigación empÃrica ha conferido al rapport como elemento que predice el éxito de la mediación, el presente artÃculo ha tomado en consideración la posibilidad de efectuar un análisis en profundidad sobre uno de los factores que conforman el rapport: la generación de confianza. Para ello, se ha desarrollado una revisión sistemática exploratoria. Los resultados del estudio han girado en torno a actitudes o aptitudes de la persona mediadora, asà como el uso de herramientas o técnicas que favorecen la generación de confianza. Entre las mismas, cabe destacar la necesidad de señalar la importancia de la generación de confianza en los momentos iniciales del proceso de mediación y el uso del Caucus.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".