The effect of a collaborative game on group work
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
As enterprises strive to transform themselves in the face of emerging technologies and challenges, there is an increasing reliance on group work and collaboration across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Often this requires establishing ad-hoc workgroups that come together to address a new problem over a short period of time. In these cases, it is important that group members can work together effectively in a short amount of time. We are interested in understanding how computer-based video games can help group members work together in real world collaborations. To do this, we identified icebreaking video game requirements based on the literature and ran an experiment with ad-hoc workgroups within an organization to assess the effect of playing an icebreaking video game before one of their collaborative work tasks. We compared groups that participated in the icebreaking video game prior to the work task with those that did not. We found that groups that played the icebreaking video game demonstrated increased collaboration in the subsequent work task.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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