Conflict-Handling Mode Scores of Three Crews Before and After a 264-Day Spaceflight Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In both the Russian and U.S. space programs, crew safety and mission success have at times been jeopardized by critical incidents related to psychological, behavioral, and interpersonal aspects of crew performance. The modes used for handling interpersonal conflict may play a key role in such situations. METHODS: This study analyzed conflict-handling modes of three crews of four people each before and after a 264-d spaceflight simulation that was conducted in Russia in 1999-2000. Conflict was defined as a situation in which the concerns of two or more individuals appeared to be incompatible. Participants were assessed using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, which uses 30 forced-choice items to produce scores for five modes of conflict handling. Results were compared to norms developed using managers at middle and upper levels of business and government. RESULTS: Both before and after isolation, average scores for all crews were above 75% for Accommodating, below 25% for Collaborating, and within the middle 50% for Competing, Avoiding, and Compromising. Statistical analyses showed no significant difference between the crews and no statistically significant shift from pre- to post-isolation. DISCUSSION: A crew predisposition to use Accommodating most and Collaborating least may be practical in experimental settings, but is less likely to be useful in resolving conflicts within or between crews on actual flights. Given that interpersonal conflicts exist in any environment, crews in future space missions might benefit from training in conflict management skills.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".