MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810895134 · doi:10.1177/875697280703800110

Project Team Performance: A Study of Electronic Task and Coordination Communication

2007· article· en· W2810895134 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

VenueProject Management Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Asynchronous communicationProject teamProject managementProcess managementKey (lock)Task managementKnowledge managementProject management 2.0Team compositionProject planningEngineering managementComputer scienceEngineeringOPM3Systems engineeringTelecommunicationsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication is a key factor in team performance, successful project completion, and effective project management. Collective asynchronous electronic messages on task and coordination sent among members of 34 teams were analyzed using time-series analysis. Results suggest that compared to low-performing teams, high-performing teams exchanged more messages, modified their exchanges around milestones, and were more prone to self-organize prior to project completion. Also, high-performing teams started to coordinate themselves later but maintained higher levels of coordination afterward. Project managers could benefit from monitoring the amount and the way their team members discuss task and coordination in order to ensure high team and project performance.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.315 · 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