Too Much to Handle? Take Advantage of Working across Multiple Virtual Team Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fast-forming, fast-dissolving virtual teams have become an important part of the modern organizational life. Managing multiple group projects in the groupware environment is therefore increasingly becoming significant. Prior studies have focused on the negative effects caused by multitasking such as interruption handling and work resumption. In this paper, we discuss the potential positive effects of working across multiple virtual team projects aiming at provoking research directions about management of multiple virtual team projects through collaborative technologies.Les équipes virtuelles éphémères sont une part importante de la vie moderne en entreprise et la gestion de projets de groupe au moyen de collecticiels devient de plus en plus significative. Les études antérieures ont étudié l’effet négatif du fonctionnement multitâche, notamment l’interruption et la reprise des travaux. Dans cette communication, on discute des effets positifs potentiels de travailler au sein de différentes équipes virtuelles dans le but de dégager un axe de recherche sur la gestion de projets de groupe au moyen de technologies collaboratives.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".