MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067875103 · doi:10.1177/104649640103200604

Reexamining Teamwork KSAs and Team Performance

2001· article· en· W2067875103 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Group Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkPsychologyTest (biology)Team effectivenessAppealApplied psychologySelection (genetic algorithm)Social psychologyPersonnel selectionTeam compositionKnowledge managementManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stevens and Campion created the Teamwork Test to be used for the selection of high potential individuals into team situations. The idea of being able to test and select high team performers based on knowledge, skills, and ability (KSA) measures has great appeal. However, methods used to validate the test leave some question as to whether it is measuring capabilities related to teamwork. This study further evaluated the test by measuring the relationship between team levels of KSAs and team effectiveness.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Group ResearchSame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207