Paradoxical Truths and Persistent Myths: Reframing the Team Competence Conversation
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
Medicine has conventionally had an individualist orientation to competence. Individual competence is conceptualized as a stable possession that, once acquired, holds across contexts. Individual competence is necessary; however, it is insufficient for quality health care. We also need to attend to collective competence in order to grapple with paradoxical truths about teamwork, such as: competent individuals can form incompetent teams. Collective competence is conceptualized as a distributed capacity of a system, an evolving, relational phenomenon that emerges from the resources and constraints of particular contexts. This article outlines a set of paradoxical truths about teamwork in health care and uses the concept of collective competence to explain how they can hold true. It then considers a set of persistent myths about teamwork which have their roots in an individualist orientation, exploring how they hold us back from meaningful change in how we educate for, and practice as, health care teams. Finally, the article briefly considers the implications of these truths and myths for educational issues such as interprofessional education and competency-based health professional education.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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