MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081963863 · doi:10.1108/13527590110395621

Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team

2001· article· en· W2081963863 on OpenAlexaff
Judith A. Holton

Bibliographic record

VenueTeam Performance Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsHolland College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual teamStructuringKnowledge managementTeam effectivenessFunction (biology)Quality (philosophy)Foundation (evidence)Virtual organizationBusinessProcess managementComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations are increasing their reliance on virtual relationships in structuring operations for a global environment. Like all teams, virtual teams require a solid foundation of mutual trust and collaboration, if they are to function effectively. Identifying and applying appropriate team building strategies for a virtual environment will not only enhance organizational effectiveness but will also impact positively on the quality of working life for virtual team members.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations269
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeam Performance ManagementSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207