Examining the characteristics and tactics of chief negotiators in Canadian universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's overall goal was to examine the behavioural characteristics and tactics used by chief faculty negotiators in a Canadian university setting-a specific yet essential niche of negotiators.A sample of faculty negotiators was compared to a rubric description of "skilled" negotiators as defined by Rackham and Carlisle (1978a&b).Lastly, I aimed to add to research about emotion as well as gender in collective bargaining.In total, there were 15 participants (n=8 male; n=7 female).The negotiators were, on average, 53.9 years old, ranging from 36 to 68 years old.Using Thematic Analysis, four main tactic themes and four subthemes were found.(1) Integrity at the bargaining table, (Honesty) (2) Stubbornness (3) Traditional competitive bargaining, (4) Using Emotion (Void emotions, Emotional argument, Indignation).In comparing behavioural characteristics found by Rackham and Carlisle (1978a&b), the negotiators in the current study responded simililarly to "skilled" negotiators.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".