Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance.
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 paper builds on and extends theory on team functioning in high-risk environments. We examined 2 implicit coordination behaviors that tend to emerge autochthonously within high-risk teams: team member monitoring and talking to the room. Focusing on nonrandom patterns of behavior, we examined sequential patterns of team member monitoring and talking to the room in higher- and lower-performing action teams working in a high-risk health care environment. Using behavior observation methods, we coded verbal and nonverbal behaviors of 27 anesthesia teams performing an induction of general anesthesia in a natural setting and assessed team performance with a Delphi-validated checklist-based performance measure. Lag sequential analyses revealed that higher-performing teams were characterized by patterns in which team member monitoring was followed by speaking up, providing assistance, and giving instructions and by patterns in which talking to the room was followed by further talking to the room and not followed by instructions. Higher- and lower-performing teams did not differ with respect to the frequency of team member monitoring and talking to the room occurrence. The results illustrate the importance of patterns of autochthonous coordination behaviors and demonstrate that the interaction patterns, as opposed to the behavior frequencies, discriminated higher- from lower-performing teams. Implications for future research and for team training are included. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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