Validity and Predictive Ability of Wilde’s Cognitive Teamology Model to Design Team Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extensive analysis of the validity of Wilde’s Teamology cognitive diversity model was undertaken with 120 teams composed of over 661 participants. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) data was collected using a qualified test over five years from students enrolled in a fourth year capstone design course. Cognitive factor scores using Wilde’s Teamology model were calculated from the MBTI data for eight factors associated with Wilde’s Information Collection and Decision Making dimensions. Wilde’s team formation model was found to nominally contribute 10.2% to the overall prediction of the variance observed in design team outcomes using a linear regression model with a threshold that the cognitive scores must exceed. Wilde’s Teamology factors of Imagination (“prophetic, guided by inner fantasies and visions”), Community (“expressive, tactful builder of group moral”), and Evaluation (“uses personal values to distinguish good/bad”) were found to be statistically associated to design team outcomes.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".