Interpersonal Affect and Peer Rating Bias in 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
This study assessed the consequences of performance feedback received from peers on a team member’s subsequent ratings of others, and the mediating influence of interpersonal affect. Undergraduate participants ( N = 142) working in 30 teams during a 7-week period were assigned collective bargaining and arbitration tasks. We found that a team member’s prior positive or negative peer feedback resulted in increased leniency or severity, respectively, and increased restriction in range when these same members subsequently rated fellow team members. Interrater agreement on ratings of peers at Time 3 was higher when raters received similar feedback (i.e., both received positive or negative feedback) from their peers at the Time 1. The mechanism through which feedback at Time 1 influenced rating biases at Time 3 was found to be interpersonal affect (measured at Time 2).
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 | 0.005 | 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 it