Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to integrate men and women more effectively into team roles requires a fuller consideration of the dynamics of work‐team diversity and the consequences for both behavior and cognition among team members. Drawing from sociological and psychological perspectives, this study examines the influence of team gender composition and gender‐orientation of the task on members' perceptions of their team's performance. The participants for this study included 216 university students (108 men, 108 women) who were randomly assigned to one of three types of gender‐mixed teams – male‐dominated, female‐dominated and balanced‐gender work‐teams. Teams were required to generate, in a (videotaped) team meeting, a negotiation strategy for two business‐related cases. Self‐report instruments provided information regarding perceptions of team performance, and expert judges offered objective measures of team performance. The findings of this study offer striking evidence that team gender composition and the gender‐orientation of the task, can clearly affect member perceptions of the quality of their team's performance, regardless of the actual performance level achieved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it