MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124874323 · doi:10.1002/alt.20184

The next frontier is anticipation: Thinking ahead about conflict to help clients find constructive ways to engage issues in advance

2007· article· en· W3124874323 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Honeyman, Julie Macfarlane, Bernard Mayer, Andrea Schneider, Jeff Seul

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternatives to the High Cost of Litigation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticipation (artificial intelligence)ConstructiveFrontierConflict resolutionDispute resolutionResolution (logic)Public relationsPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyBusinessComputer scienceLawProcess (computing)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assuming a comfort level by lawyers and companies with conflict resolution processes, five top conflict resolution authorities have joined together to discuss the next step. They believe that sophisticated ADR practice will be characterized by anticipatory dispute prevention

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlternatives to the High Cost of LitigationSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207