Bibliographic record
Abstract
В данной статье раскрывается социально-психологическая сущность организационных конструктивных конфликтов. С позиции социальной психологии формулируется их понятие и сущность. Вместе с тем выявляется связь конструктивных конфликтов с определенными видами социальных организаций. Анализируется их роль в профессиональной деятельности матричных, проектных, научных, медицинских, судебных учреждений, народных предприятий. Кроме того, уточняется определение такого понятия, как факторы возникновения организационных конструктивных конфликтов, и рассматривается практика трансформации конструктивных организационных конфликтов в деструктивные. The present article focuses on the social and psychological essence of constructive conflicts in organizations. The article treats the essence of conflicting situations from the point of view of social psychology. It also focuses on the way constructive conflicts are related to social organizations. It analyzes the role of constructive conflicts in professional actions in matrix organizations, project organizations, scientific organizations, medical organizations, legal organizations, and public organizations. Moreover, it defines factors contributing to constructive conflict arousal in organizations. It also focuses on the transformation of constructive conflicts into destructive ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".