MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110658742

Hoe los je een conflict op met een dialoog?

2016· other· nl· W7110658742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSocio-Environmental Systems Modeling · 2016
Typeother
Languagenl
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElderly peopleBent molecular geometryPost hoc
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schreeuwen, negeren of gewoon weglopen: soms zijn we het zo hartgrondig oneens met de ander dat het lijkt alsof er geen enkel gesprek mogelijk is. Op zo'n moment kan een dialoog als gespreksvorm helpen. Maar wat is dat eigenlijk, "een dialoog" en waarom is het hoog tijd dat we die vaardigheid leren? Dat legt prof. dr. Noelle Aarts (Communicatiewetenschap, WUR) allemaal uit. Of je het er nu mee eens bent of niet! Wil je meer weten? Als je enthousiast bent geworden, kun je bij Kennislink meer over dit onderwerp lezen. Elke cultuur heeft zijn eigen manier van ruzie maken. De Inuit gaan conflicten liever uit de weg en gebruiken humor om escalaties te voorkomen. Waarom en hoe doen ze dit precies? Lees meer op Kennislink.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.373

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocio-Environmental Systems ModelingFrench-language works237,207