MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967558419 · doi:10.1002/pmj.21463

The Difficult but Necessary Task of Developing a Specific Project Team Research Agenda

2014· article· en· W1967558419 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Management Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementTask (project management)Project managementOPM3Project teamProject stakeholderProject charterEngineering ethicsProject management triangleBusinessEngineeringProcess managementManagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project teams are central to organizations everywhere; however, there is a knowledge gap between project management scholars on the one hand and organizational behavior and industrial–organizational (OB/IO) scholars on the other. This gap seriously impedes the advancement of knowledge, because scholars from both fields have not leveraged each other's considerable knowledge and might be relying on outdated models and evidence to study project team phenomena, manage project teams, or develop university curricula. A call is made for interdisciplinary research projects devoted specifically to developing a research agenda on project teams.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.300 · 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