Exploring the Potential Disadvantages of High Cohesion in Sports Teams
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
In the present study, a heterogeneous sample of 105 athletes (mean age = 21.4 years) was used to gain insight into the potential negative consequences of high team cohesion. Athletes were asked open-ended questions relating to the potential disadvantages of high task and high social cohesion. It was found that 56% of athletes reported possible disadvantages to high social cohesion, whereas 31% of athletes reported possible disadvantages to high task cohesion. Furthermore, data analyses revealed multiple dimensions of negative consequences for both high task and social cohesion. More specifically, analysis of responses revealed both group- and personal-level consequences. The findings contrast with the popularly held view that high cohesion is always beneficial for teams and team members. It was suggested that future research assess the prevalence and importance of the disadvantages of high cohesion.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it