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
Purpose – The purpose of this paper, building on the work of Aubé et al. (2009, 2011) who developed a four-dimension model of counterproductive behaviors in team settings, is to examine the team-level consequences of these behaviors. More specifically, the authors investigate the mediating role of collaboration, a key component of teamwork, in the counterproductive behaviors–team performance relationships. Design/methodology/approach – Using a multisource approach and a team-level design, data were gathered from 101 work teams (381 members and 101 immediate supervisors). The study was conducted within a Canadian public safety organization. Findings – Results show that the four dimensions of counterproductive behaviors are negatively related to team performance. Moreover, results indicate that each of these relationships is completely mediated by a decrease of collaboration among members. Taken together, the results of this study show that the presence of counterproductive behaviors within teams constitutes a collective phenomenon which affects not only team members, but also the functioning and effectiveness of the team as a whole. Originality/value – This study differs from previous studies mainly by adopting a multidimensional conception of counterproductive behaviors and focusing on consequences of these behaviors on the team as a system. In practical terms, the results suggest that the presence of counterproductive behaviors may require team-level interventions (e.g. team building) in addition to individual interventions with individuals involved.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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