MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064941040 · doi:10.1177/1046496406296961

Exploring Traditional and Virtual Team Members’ “Best Practices”

2007· article· en· W2064941040 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

VenueSmall Group Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkVirtual teamTeam effectivenessPsychologyBest practiceTeam compositionPsychological safetyContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementApplied psychologySocial cognitive theoryCognitionPerceptionSocial psychologyComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social cognitive theory is used to develop a research model that was tested by examining employees’ experiences of being a member in a traditional or virtual team. A self-efficacy for teamwork measure was developed based on best practices identified through case studies and existing literature. Then a survey of team members demonstrated that self-efficacy for teamwork is influenced by fellow team members’ modeling practices and relates strongly to a team member’s perceptions of effectiveness. Differential outcomes for traditional and two types of technology-supported virtual teams (distributed and hybrid) were found: Self-efficacy for teamwork was more important in virtual teams, providing empirical support for the importance of the best practices in this context.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.586
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.131 · 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