MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414120366 · doi:10.1108/978-1-83662-694-7

The Invisible Influences on Decision-Making

2025· book· en· W4414120366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Chitpin, Michael Dougan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeQualitative researchEveryday lifeFocus (optics)ReflexivityKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Invisible Influences on Decision-Making explores the often unseen factors that influence decision-making in both everyday life and various professional settings, with a particular focus on policing, medicine, education, and counselling. Chitpin and Dougan present key findings and trends in decision-making research, then go on to explore the concept of indecisiveness before examining decision-making processes in these specific professions. The authors employ qualitative research methodologies, such as case studies and phenomenology, alongside social influence theories, to provide a nuanced and current understanding of decision-making within these fields. By incorporating perspectives from professionals, chapters aim to enhance public understanding and confidence in how decisions are made in these critical areas, especially within a Canadian context. While there is existing literature on decision-making in community service professions, it often remains discipline specific. The Invisible Influences on Decision-Making addresses the need for more inter-professional and interdisciplinary research, highlighting the collaborative nature of these professions and the complexities of their decision-making processes. By integrating real professional examples with research and theory, this study offers a compelling and insightful narrative that will engage researchers, practitioners, and graduate students across various fields.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.401 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207