MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333213386 · doi:10.1177/1046496413506943

A Look in the Mirror

2013· article· en· W2333213386 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Group Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-efficacyPsychologySymbolic interactionismCongruence (geometry)Social psychologySocial cognitive theoryMultilevel modelCognitionCollective efficacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study integrates symbolic interactionism with Bandura’s social cognitive theory by conceptualizing and examining socially reflected efficacy beliefs within groups. The data collected from 128 students in 39 project teams indicate that self-constructed and reflected images of self-efficacy are empirically distinct from each other; however, such is not the case for self-constructed and reflected images of team-efficacy. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, our multilevel polynomial regression analysis revealed that members engaged more in work collaboration and less in process hindrance when they perceived congruence between self-efficacy and reflected self-efficacy, between self-efficacy and team efficacy, and between reflected self-efficacy and team efficacy. Our results suggest that self-efficacy beliefs have a socially constructed nature, thus expanding social cognitive theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it