Leadership Status Congruency and Cohesion in Outdoor Expedition Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between status congruency and group cohesion in outdoor expedition groups in an educational setting. Specifically, three aspects of status congruency were assessed in relation to group cohesion in four adventure canoe groups. The groups participated in 2-week expeditions in the northern areas of the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The participants were 32 upper-year undergraduate students enrolled in a central Canadian university (Mage = 22.41, SD = 2.43 years). Results indicated that (a) individuals who ranked themselves higher in the group's status hierarchy compared to where their peers ranked them had lower perceptions of their attraction to their group's social pursuits; (b) perceptions of group cohesion were greater when individuals occupying formal leadership positions were higher in the group's status ranking (i.e., greater congruency between formal and informal status hierarchies); and (c) individuals who were members of groups that had some level of consensus regarding status rankings perceived their groups to be more cohesive than those who were members of the group that had no consensus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".