MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119169479 · doi:10.1177/1046496403256011

Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams

2003· article· en· W2119169479 on OpenAlexaff
Benoit A. Aubert, Barbara L. Kelsey

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Group Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVirtual teamKnowledge managementTeam effectivenessPsychological safetySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust has been deemed to be critical in ensuring the efficient operation of virtual teams and organizations. This study empirically verifies ability and integrity as being antecedents of trust formation in virtual teams. However, effective team performance was found to be independent of the formation of trust. Further analysis suggests that information symmetry and good communication distinguish high performance teams from low performance teams.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations283
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Group ResearchSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207