Conscientiousness in Teams Completing Creative Tasks: Does it Predict?
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 The relationship between conscientiousness and creativity remains equivocal. This is surprising because conscientiousness is a good predictor of job performance across most criteria and occupations. In this longitudinal study, I found support for the achievement striving and the dependability aspects of conscientiousness affecting team member creativity in different ways. Specifically, the achievement striving aspect of conscientiousness positively predicts creative self‐efficacy, but the dependability aspect negatively predicts creative self‐efficacy. Conversely, dependability positively predicts teamwork self‐efficacy, while achievement striving is unrelated to teamwork self‐efficacy. Creative self‐efficacy partially mediates between achievement striving and team member creativity. Both creative self‐efficacy and teamwork self‐efficacy mediate between dependability and team member creativity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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