MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031569182 · doi:10.1177/154193120605001710

Team Response to Workload Transition: The Role of Team Structure

2006· article· en· W2031569182 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Eve Jobidon, R. Breton, R. J. ROUSSEAU, Sébastien Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Strategy and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadContext (archaeology)Task (project management)Transition (genetics)Event (particle physics)Function (biology)Computer scienceSimulationOperations managementAeronauticsEngineeringGeographyBiologySystems engineeringPhysicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to investigate how teams respond to workload transition due to a sudden and unexpected event in a complex and dynamic command and control (C2) environment. The C 3 Fire microworld (Granlund, 1998), a forest fire-fighting simulation, is used to compare divisional (territory-specific) and functional (role-specific) teams. Workload transition is induced by the sudden appearance of a second fire. Results show that functional teams' performance decreases while their communication frequency increases following the workload transition. However, they are faster to detect the second fire. This pattern of results suggests that in the context of C2 environments, the impact of a workload escalation varies as a function of team structure (functional vs. divisional) and the type of task (fire detection vs. fire fighting).

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicMilitary Strategy and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207