<scp>CENTRE</scp> : creating psychological safety in groups
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
BACKGROUND: Ten years of clinical and teaching experience has shown us that when teams or groups come together, it is often for a commonly understood and agreed upon purpose, but often without an agreed upon process of how to work together. Explicit guidelines in this regard promote psychological safety. CONTEXT: This article presents a method of developing agreements that can be used in a variety of settings to create psychological safety and cohesion. In our experience, agreements about how people join together seem to be developed implicitly. Assumption-based and implicit agreements can engender friction because unspoken or unclear agreements are not easily addressed because they are not universally understood. INNOVATION: A literature review helped to identify key factors contributing to psychological safety and led to creating 'CENTRE' to help clinical teams apply these factors. We are now starting to evaluate its impact. We believe a tool such as CENTRE facilitates the development of explicitly articulated group formation and maintenance guidelines, thus reducing the risk of interpersonal discord. IMPLICATIONS: We propose that a tool such as CENTRE be considered for a range of group situations, including clinical family meetings, teaching, professional teams and Balint-type groups. We are currently using this approach in clinical, academic and other professional environments. Findings from a survey of groups where CENTRE was used suggested that participants find the process useful. We believe a tool such as CENTRE can be used to help address relational issues, promote psychological safety, inclusion and trust among members, and reduce the risk of undeclared expectations and assumptions from dictating how groups function. Assumption-based and implicit agreements can engender friction because unspoken or unclear agreements are not easily addressed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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