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
This study examines how the cultural heterogeneity of work teams moderates the way in which team cultural intelligence (CQ) affects the development of team shared values. Utilizing the four-factor model of CQ, we predict how each facet of CQ will impact the development of shared values in relatively early stages of team development differently for culturally homogeneous versus culturally heterogeneous work teams. We operationalize team shared values as the degree to which a broad set of cultural values are similarly endorsed by team members as guiding principles when working in their team. Results show that behavioral and metacognitive CQ had a positive effect on shared values in culturally heterogeneous teams; however, motivational and metacognitive CQ had a negative effect on shared values in culturally homogeneous teams. All effects were observed in the early stages of team development. Having uncovered positive and negative effects of CQ for shared values in work teams, we discuss implications for theory and practice around this form of cultural competence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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