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
Although most work teams use meetings as a tool for accomplishing their objectives, there is little research examining meeting-related variables in teams. In this article, we propose a new construct, team meeting attitudes (TMA), that involves individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and evaluations of team meetings. We constructed a scale that measures individuals’ TMA, and we report on the scale’s psychometric properties, including test-retest reliabilities, over four measurement occasions. Using a sample of engineering project design teams, intraclass correlations of repeated measurements suggested that TMA appeared to emerge over time. Moreover, our TMA scale, aggregated to the team level using the mean, had direct effects on time spent in team meetings, perceptions of team meeting effectiveness, and team potency. Mean TMA were also indirectly related to team task performance through team potency. These findings were interpreted as supportive of activity regulation and action theories because teams with high means on TMA may have members who view team meetings as conducive to goal accomplishment and not as interruptive.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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