MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011367146 · doi:10.1177/109442810034001

Enhancing Team Mental Model Measurement with Performance Appraisal Practices

2000· article· en· W2011367146 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

VenueOrganizational Research Methods · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental modelPsychologySimilarity (geometry)Performance measurementField (mathematics)Applied psychologyPerformance appraisalStructural equation modelingComputer scienceKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceManagementMathematicsBusinessMachine learningMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little dispute exists with regard to the conceptual and practical contributions of team mental models (TMMs) to team-related research and applications, yet the measurement of TMMs poses great challenges for researchers and practitioners. Borrowing from performance appraisal practices, this article presents a new method for assessing TMMs that is user-friendly and allows for the measurement of both TMM accuracy and similarity. The extent to which TMM similarity and accuracy indices predict team performance in a field setting is examined. Contributions to team research and practice are discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.340 · 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