MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211911331 · doi:10.1111/nejo.12377

Teaching Entrepreneurial Negotiation

2021· article· en· W3211911331 on OpenAlex

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

VenueNegotiation Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationEntrepreneurshipClass (philosophy)Public relationsSociologyEntrepreneurship educationPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the importance of negotiation skills for entrepreneurs, the pedagogy of teaching negotiation to entrepreneurship students has not been fully developed. In some entrepreneurship programs, negotiation is covered briefly in a single class. In other programs, courses focused entirely on negotiation are available to entrepreneurship students; however, these classes are aimed primarily at those interested in pursuing corporate jobs within more stable environments. This article provides guidance to educators in designing, developing, and delivering negotiation content with an entrepreneurial focus. We explain why entrepreneurial negotiation education is needed and how it fills current gaps in entrepreneurship education. The article outlines a continuum of entrepreneurial negotiation, identifies the unique challenges faced by entrepreneurship students, unpacks the critical learning objectives in an entrepreneurial negotiation course, discusses how to reinforce core entrepreneurship concepts, and lays out a guide for teaching entrepreneurial negotiation by providing educational content that matches the key learning objectives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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