MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082619731 · doi:10.1108/02621710210420273

Leadership and trust facilitating cross‐functional team success

2002· article· en· W2082619731 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

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Variety (cybernetics)Team effectivenessPsychological safetyOrganisation climateTeam developmentTeam compositionLeadership developmentPsychologyKnowledge managementOrganization developmentShared leadershipBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceTransactional leadershipApplied psychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross‐functional teams (CFTs) have increased in use within a variety of organizations. While these teams claim to enhance organizational effectiveness, research has seen mixed results. This paper examines the challenges faced by CFTs and why these challenges facilitate the need for the development of a team climate for trust. Trust is discussed as a team‐level construct, an aspect of the “micro‐climate” that occurs within a team. Leadership actions particularly important to cross‐functional teams and the development of trust are offered as influential in creating a team climate for trust in cross‐functional teams.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.222 · 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