MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977008536 · doi:10.1037/a0018296

Evaluating a team building intervention in a youth exercise setting.

2010· article· en· W1977008536 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

VenueGroup Dynamics Theory Research and Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Team buildingMedical educationPsychologyPhysical therapyApplied psychologyMedicineEngineeringEngineering managementNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the mechanisms in an established team building (TB) activity intervention and cohesion, its proposed outcome as well as conduct a process evaluation of the intervention in a youth exercise setting. Participants (N 100, 13–17 years) were members of school-based exercise clubs randomly assigned to either a TB or control condition. In the TB condition, trained leaders implemented an established TB protocol (Carron & Spink, 1993). Results revealed a positive association between the specified mechanisms in the TB intervention and the proposed outcome of task cohesion. The evaluation of the intervention also revealed that the TB components were implemented as prescribed, and the intervention appeared to be appropriate for a youth setting.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.404 · 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