Conference Paper

A personality-based model of agents for representing individuals in working organizations

Informatics & Appl. Math. Dept., Fed. Univ. of RN, Brazil
DOI: 10.1109/IAT.2005.18 Conference: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, Compiegne, France, September 19-22, 2005
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT This paper proposes an agent architecture which can be used to represent individuals within a working organization. The proposed architecture has been based on the theory of human personality and its working relationship from Theodore Milton. The main aim of this paper is to describe a suitable representation of individual behaviors which is able to be mapped to collective patterns of a human organization. The proposed architecture has been used in the SimOrg project, which aims to apply a multi-agent simulation in human organizations.

Download full-text


Available from: Anne M. P. Canuto, Sep 28, 2015
15 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We critically examine how evidence and knowledge are brokered between the various actors (agents) in regulatory decisions on risk. Following a précis of context and regulatory process, we explore the role power and personality might play as evidence is synthesised and used to inform risk decisions, providing a review of the relevant literature from applied psychology, agent-based simulation and regulatory science. We make a case for the adoption of agent-based tools for addressing the sufficiency of evidence and resolving uncertainty in regulatory decisions. Referring to other environmental applications of agent-based decisionmaking, we propose how an agent model might represent power structures and personality characteristics with the attending implications for the brokering of regulatory science. This critical review has implications for the structuring of evidence that informs environmental decisions and the personal traits required of modern regulators operating in facilitative regulatory settings.
    Journal of Risk Research 12/2010; 13(8):961-982. DOI:10.1080/13669877.2010.486075 · 1.27 Impact Factor