MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060100043 · doi:10.1037/a0014367

Boundary work in knowledge teams.

2009· article· en· W2060100043 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

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary spanningPsychologyBoundary (topology)Perspective (graphical)Psychological safetyTeam effectivenessTask (project management)Team compositionResource (disambiguation)Work (physics)Applied psychologyReinforcementKnowledge managementSocial psychologyManagementComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to promote an open systems perspective on team research. The authors develop a model of team boundary activities: boundary spanning, buffering, and reinforcement. The model examines the relationship between these boundary activities and team performance, the moderating effects of organizational contextual factors, and the mediating effect of team psychological safety on the boundary work-performance relationship. These relationships were empirically tested with data collected from 64 software development teams. Boundary spanning, buffering, and boundary reinforcement were found to relate to team performance and psychological safety. Both relationships are moderated by the team's task uncertainty and resource scarcity. The implications of the findings are offered for future research and practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.308 · 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