When the <scp>SUIT</scp> Fits: Constructive Controversy Training in Face‐to‐Face and Virtual Teams
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
Abstract One of the major reasons organizations have turned to work teams is because challenges are too complex, and too large in scope, for any single individual to address. As a result, teams must engage in information sharing, exchange, and processing that optimize the use of each team member's knowledge. Accordingly, we invoked a framework called SUIT , based on the theory of constructive controversy, that teaches teams to effectively share, understand, integrate, and make team decisions. We also considered whether a training program developed in accordance with the SUIT principles has stronger effects for virtual teams ( VT s) relative to face‐to‐face (FtF) teams, given that VT s tend to need more information sharing and decision‐making support. Using a fully crossed and balanced experimental design, we found that teams receiving SUIT training reported greater constructive controversy levels and, in turn, higher objective task performance. The communication medium did not moderate this effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it