MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intercultural Communication in International Negotiation

2017· other· en· W3011731981 on OpenAlex
Leigh Anne Liu, Wendi L. Adair

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationImprovisationSituational ethicsIntercultural communicationPsychologyPhenomenonSocial psychologyPhenomenology (philosophy)Intercultural competenceIdentity negotiationCompetence (human resources)Public relationsKnowledge managementSociologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceCommunicationPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This entry reviews research on intercultural communication in international negotiations through the perspectives of the individual negotiator, the interactions between and among negotiators, and the phenomenology of culture in the time frames of past, present, and future. Past research has focused on individuals' values and norms, negotiator styles and behavioral adjustment, and culture as a relatively static characteristic that creates clashes and barriers to mutual understanding. Present studies address cognitive schemas and communication experience as well as situational factors at the individual level, negotiation process and consensus building during interactions, and culture as a dynamic influence with many contextual moderators. Future research should include negotiator competence, identity, and improvisation; technology and coalition analysis during interactions; and culture as both a dynamic and multilevel phenomenon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it