MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941913771 · doi:10.1177/2379298119843016

Using Implicit Followership Theories to Illustrate Cognitive Schemas: An Experiential Exercise

2019· article· en· W2941913771 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

VenueManagement Teaching Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollowershipExperiential learningPsychologyPerceptionContext (archaeology)CognitionSample (material)Class (philosophy)Social psychologyApplied psychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we outline an experiential exercise designed to teach students about cognitive schemas (what they are, how they are developed, and how they may influence us). Drawing on the literature related to implicit followership theories, the exercise encourages students to explore their perceptions related to the role of followers, thus providing a concrete example via which they can explore the concept of schemas. The exercise was designed in the context of an undergraduate organizational behavior course and has been used on four occasions with success. We describe the learning objectives of the exercise and the steps to run it, provide detailed instructor notes, and offer some supplementary materials (i.e., sample content for class slides). We conclude the article by proposing potential variations of the exercise.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.284 · 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