Empathic Features of Conducting Negotiations in an Entrepreneurial Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In business and scientific literature, empathy (i.e. the ability to accept different perspectives, put oneself in another person's place, and develop interpersonal relations) occupies an important place.However, there is a risk that, in negotiations, the ability to induce the counterparty to accept the prospect, i.e. the display of empathy, is no less critical for success.External pressure and aggression cause psychological resistance.Sometimes such resistance takes on grotesque forms, forcing people to commit actions that directly contradict their interests to demonstrate their independence.The study's novelty stems from the fact that negotiations in work as an entrepreneur depend on empathic ability.The authors show that empathy training and upgrading can improve the quality and success of negotiations, leading to concluded contracts and, consequently, to better business performance.The work has established that entrepreneurial empathy in professional activities contributes to the development of secondary socioeconomic indicators of the environment and society.The study's practical significance is determined by the structure of the creation of an empathic component in the practical activities of business structures in the context of overcoming crisis phenomena in the economy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".