Efficacy for Interdependent Role Functions
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
The present study reports on the initial development of an instrument to measure role efficacy for interdependent functions and test its conceptual distinctiveness from other forms of efficacy within interdependent teams. Intercollegiate basketball players completed a role efficacy questionnaire on which they reported their confidence in capabilities to perform interdependent role functions within their team’s offensive and defensive systems. They also completed measures of task self-efficacy and collective efficacy. Consistent with predictions, role efficacy and task self-efficacy were moderately related. Role efficacy was also distinct from collective efficacy insofar as the latter perception showed evidence of a shared group perception, whereas role efficacy showed individual-level variance only. Starting players reported greater role efficacy than nonstarters, yet collective efficacy and task self-efficacy were the same regardless of starting status. Together, results supported the initial validity and conceptual distinctiveness of role efficacy within the interdependent sport team environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.017 | 0.011 |
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