MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105445759 · doi:10.1177/1046496406294545

Member Diversity and Cohesion and Performance in Walking Groups

2006· article· en· W2105445759 on OpenAlexaff
Kim M. Shapcott, Albert V. Carron, Shauna M. Burke, Michael H. Bradshaw, Paul A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Group Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup cohesivenessCohesion (chemistry)PsychologyDiversity (politics)Social psychologyTask (project management)Ethnic groupCultural diversitySociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship of group member diversity in task-related attributes (i.e., self-efficacy, level of previous physical activity, and personal goals) and task-unrelated attributes (i.e., ethnicity and gender) to task cohesiveness and task performance in walking groups ( N varied from 1,324 to 1,392 groups for the analyses). For the task-related attributes, diversity in level of previous physical activity was significantly related to both task cohesion and group performance—as diversity increased, cohesion and performance decreased. For the task-unrelated attributes, diversity in gender was related to task cohesion—as diversity increased, cohesion decreased. Gender diversity was unrelated to group performance. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the dynamics of task-oriented groups.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Group ResearchSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207