Is There a Relationship Between Individual Learning, Team Learning, and Organizational Learning?
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
Scholars suggest that there is a need for more research, particularly quantitative designs, that aim to examine the relationship between individual learning, team learning, and organizational learning. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is a relationship between perceived individual learning, team learning, and organizational learning. With a survey we collected data from 106 laboratory supervisors in Ontario hospitals to answer four research questions: 1) Is there a relationship between perceived individual learning and team learning?; 2) Is there a relationship between perceived individual learning and organizational learning?; 3) Is there a relationship between perceived team learning and organizational learning?; 4) Is there a relationship between perceived individual learning, or team learning, and a component of organizational learning? We found positive answers to the first three questions, but the answer to the last question was a little more complicated. Les chercheurs proposent qu’il faille pousser la recherche, notamment les études utilisant des modèles quantitatifs, qui portent sur le rapport entre l’apprentissage individuel, l’apprentissage en équipe et l’apprentissage organisationnel. L’objectif de cette étude est de déterminer s’il existe un rapport entre l’apprentissage individuel, l’apprentissage en équipe et l’apprentissage organisationnel tel que perçu par les participants. Par le biais d’un sondage, nous avons récolté des données de la part de 106 superviseurs de laboratoire dans des hôpitaux en Ontario qui ont répondu à quatre questions : 1) Existe-t-il un rapport entre l’apprentissage individuel et l’apprentissage en équipe tel que perçu par les participants? 2) Existe-t-il un rapport entre l’apprentissage individuel et l’apprentissage organisationnel tel que perçu par les participants? 3) Existe-t-il un rapport entre l’apprentissage en équipe et l’apprentissage organisationnel tel que perçu par les participants? 4) Existe-t-il un rapport entre l’apprentissage individuel, ou l’apprentissage en équipe et une composante de l’apprentissage organisationnel? Nous avons trouvé des réponses affirmatives aux trois premières questions, mais la réponse à la dernière est un peu plus compliquée.
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 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
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