Do Individual Perceptions of Group Cohesion Reflect Shared Beliefs?
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's primary purpose was to examine the degree to which individual perceptions of cohesiveness reflect shared beliefs in sport teams. The secondary purposes were to examine how the type of cohesion, the task interactive nature of the group, and the absolute level of cohesion relate to the index of agreement. Teams (n = 192 containing 2,107 athletes) were tested on the Group Environment Questionnaire. Index of agreement values were greater for the group integration (GI) manifestations of cohesiveness (GI-task, rwg(j) = .721; GI-social,rwg(j) = .694) than for the individual attractions to the group (ATG) manifestations (ATG-task, rwg(j) = .621; ATG-social, rwg(j) = .563). No differences were found for interactive versus coactive/independent sport teams. A positive relationship was observed between the absolute level of cohesiveness and the index of agreement. Results were discussed in terms of their implication for the aggregation of individual perceptions of cohesion to represent the group construct.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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