MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Virtual Teams and Communities of Practice

2006· book-chapter· en· W2802699507 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gordon Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollegialityBureaucracyKnowledge managementBalance (ability)Collaborative modelPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interdisciplinary research is being supported by universities and funding agencies, which in turn require a collaborative approach by researchers with complimentary yet different sets of expertise. Communities of practice are also facilitated by a collaborative approach, with groups of researchers investigating an area of common interest. It is important to note that collaborative research is not an extension of the single researcher approach. Goode (1973) originally suggested that collaborative research may be depicted as a delicate balance of collegiality and bureaucracy. Bradley (1982) supported this idea and further suggested that to increase the probability of group success, it is important to reach, as early as possible, a mutually acceptable and explicit agreement about group members’ responsibilities.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207