MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914588919 · doi:10.17722/ijme.v12i2.1054

Accomplishment of goal levels in multi team systems: Role of leadership skills and multicultural teams

2019· article· en· W2914588919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Nawaz, Asma Tahir, Rana Mumtaz Khan, Ghulam Abbas Bhatti, Alina Namatullah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management Excellence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Process (computing)ReciprocalKnowledge managementMulticulturalismDependency (UML)Process managementGoal settingTeam effectivenessComputer sciencePsychologyBusinessSocial psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teams are increasingly engaged in networked interaction across teams and organizational boundaries in order to achieve complex, lower order and higher order goals. Considering the fact that the goals accomplishment is the basic necessity of organizations, this study aims at exploring the accomplishment of goal levels in multi team systems (MTSs). There exists an absence of theoretical models focused on systems composed of such teams. This study therefore, proposes a predictive model to improve understanding in this regard. It has been suggested that the higher order goals are more effective to accomplish under sequential and reciprocal functional process inter dependencies. Conversely, the lower order goals are more effective to accomplish under intensive functional process inter dependency. However, this goal achievement requires facilitators to make it more effective because of which moderators such as leadership skills and multicultural teams are proposed within the suggested framework.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Management ExcellenceSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207