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, empatía y confianza. Dado el alcance que la investigación empírica ha conferido al rapport como elemento que predice el éxito de la mediación, el presente artículo 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, así 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 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 | 0.316 | 0.495 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".