Attributes of Interdisciplinary Research Teams: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To solve large complex health-related problems, there has been a progressive movement towards interdisciplinary research teams; however, there has been minimal investigation into the attributes of successful teams. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the attributes that are important for the effective functioning of these teams. METHOD: Literature from medicine, nursing and psychology databases, published between 1990 and 2010, was reviewed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thematic organization of the findings identified seven attributes important to effective interdisciplinary research teams: team purpose, goals, leadership, communication, cohesion, mutual respect and reflection. These attributes are described in depth. CONCLUSION: Identification of these attributes could form the basis of a new measure to monitor interdisciplinary research team effectiveness, identify weaknesses and promote team development.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it