The impact of team familiarity and team leader experience on team coordination errors: A panel analysis of professional basketball teams
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
Summary To explore the dynamics involved in team coordination, we examine the impact of team familiarity and team leader experience on team coordination errors (TCEs). We argue that team familiarity has a U‐shaped effect on TCEs. We study the moderating effects of team leader prior experience and team leader team‐specific experience on the association between team familiarity and TCEs. We use panel data on teams from the National Basketball Association to test the hypotheses. Our findings support the U‐shaped relationship between team familiarity and TCEs and the moderating effect of team leader team‐specific experience on this relationship. The paper advances research on errors in organizations by analyzing the antecedents of TCEs, so far an underexplored empirical phenomenon. Moreover, it contributes to research on coordination in teams by empirically examining the interplay between formal and informal coordination mechanisms. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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