Supportive Organizational Context for Teams: A Study of Construct Validity
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
Despite a call within scientific literature to better account for contextual factors in team studies, very little research has systematically analyzed the potentially critical role of such factors, thus limiting organizations’ ability to provide contextual conditions that would foster team effectiveness. The Supportive Organizational Context for Teams (SOCT) construct effectively captures some of these factors (rewards, information, education, and resource allocation). However, while the internal consistency of the SOCT has been analyzed, its multidimensional representation has never been tested. In this study, we address these limitations by assessing the factor structure of a measure proposed by Wageman et al. (2005) and of its distinctive nature in relation to Perceived Organizational Support. Using a sample of 235 participants and the newly developed bifactor-ESEM framework, this study supports the notion that a high-order model is superior to a first-order model, and SOCT and Perceived Organizational Support are distinct from one another.
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 | 0.001 | 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