Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Study: In the past, negotiation-based, role-play sales-assignments have involved oneto-one interaction between a buyer and a seller. Unfortunately, this traditional format often overlooks the importance and presence of multiple buyers/sellers, the role of location, the dynamics of fluctuating market price, and the influential function of competitors. This exercise, The Sales Marketplace , teaches students to be cognizant of these variables beyond just negotiation tactics. Further, additional steps are put in place to have students reflect on their experience as a sales negotiator. Method/Design and Sample: Seventy-six upper year undergraduate marketing concentration majors were given a survey to evaluate The Sales Marketplace exercise. Results: The students reported that The Sales Marketplace is superior to the traditional format in 15 separate questionnaire items, including providing a better outlook of the sales marketplace, providing a realistic sales negotiation experience, requiring more problem analysis, interpersonal skills, emotional control, teamwork, decision making ability, ethical awareness, and class interaction. Students also reported that the exercise enhanced their learning experience, increased their knowledge of sales principles, imagination, and creativity. Value to Marketing Educators: The advantage of the The Sales Marketplace is four-fold. First, the activity evolves beyond a simple lesson in negotiation tactics. Second, it allows students to reflect on their sales negotiation skills and self awareness. Third, this exercise deploys active learning techniques to immerse students in sales-negotiation scenarios. Finally, this method is customizable to any course (beyond sales-based courses) that utilizes negotiation-based learning.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".