MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049217144 · doi:10.1145/506740.506745

Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development

2000· article· en· W2049217144 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

VenueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryAxial codingCoding (social sciences)Computer sciencePerspective (graphical)Coding theoryProcess (computing)Human–computer interactionQualitative researchTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceSociologyTheoretical samplingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines how the grounded theory methodology was adapted to develop a process model of collaboration in virtual teams. The data analysis was conducted using an adapted version of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding procedures offered by Strauss and Corbin (1990). In applying the grounded theory procedures, the objective was to stay true to the goals and spirit of each coding procedure, while modifying details of procedural steps that were too mechanistic or impractical. The paper develops a meta-theoretical framework through a synthesis of the data, the symbolic interactionist perspective, and structuration theory. This framework is an alternative to the "paradigm model" during selective coding of data.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.295 · 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