The Relationship between Intrateam Conflict and Cohesion within Hockey Teams
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
Traditionally, intrateam conflict has been viewed as the antithesis of team cohesion. However, with a multidimensional view of both conflict and cohesion, certain types of conflict may be positively related to some aspects of cohesion. It was predicted that constructive styles of conflict would be positively related to cohesion, whereas destructive conflict would be negatively related to cohesion. Sixty-two male hockey players completed the Group Environment Questionnaire and Canary, Cunningham, and Cody’s conflict style measure. Higher levels of social cohesion were related to greater use of constructive conflict style and lesser use of destructive style. Task and social cohesion were negatively correlated with greater use of destructive style. Two of the four cohesion factors were predicted from regression models based on the conflict style scores. These results support the hypothesis that constructive conflict may be positively related to cohesion, as well as previous research that inferred that negative conflict was negatively related to team unity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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