“It’s Not Conflict, It’s Differences of Opinion”
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
To properly manage conflict, the mechanisms of the complex conflict process must be understood. Building on existing research, the purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the conflict process by examining nonprofit board member experiences with task, process, and relationship conflict, identifying latent conditions that influence the likelihood of these conflict types, and exploring the impact of conflict within nonprofit boards. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 provincial sport organization (PSO) board members. The findings revealed that board members downplayed conflict because of its negative connotation. Furthermore, task, process, and relationship conflict were each described according to continuums of intensity ranging from respectful and professional discussion to heated and rigorous debate. The intensity of each type of conflict was perceived to be influenced by specific latent conditions and to influence both group and individual outcomes. These findings highlight the complex nature of intragroup conflict in this setting and demonstrate the need to identify intensity when examining task, process, and relationship conflict. Implications for research and practice are presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it