Role Ambiguity, Task Cohesion, and Task Self-Efficacy
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 purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between role ambiguity and both task cohesion (group integration-task and attractions to the group-task) and task efficacy (for offence and defense) in basketball. Ambiguity was operationalized as a multidimensional construct comprising a lack of clear understanding about (a) scope of role responsibilities, (b) behaviors to carry out role responsibilities, (c) how role performance will be evaluated, and (d) the consequences of a failure to discharge role responsibilities. The results showed a high degree of relationship among the four manifestations of role ambiguity. Also, ambiguity concerning scope of responsibilities was inversely related to both measures of task cohesion as well as task efficacy for defense. Task efficacy for offence was predicted for female athletes by ambiguity associated with evaluation of performance and for male athletes by ambiguity associated with evaluation of performance and consequences of not fulfilling responsibilities. Implications of findings and future research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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