Team Processes and Outcomes During the AMADEE-18 Mars Analog Mission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine team functioning within the context of the AMADEE 18 Mars analog project, which took place in Oman in the winter of 2018. Five "Analog Astronauts" participated in this study. Each completed measures of individual-level variables, including demographics and personality, before the simulated Mars mission began. At several time points during the mission, and once at the end, participants completed measures of individual stress reactions, and teamwork-related variables, including several types of team conflict, citizenship behavior, in-role behavior, counterproductive behavior, and social loafing. Each participant also reported how well he or she felt the team performed. The results indicate an overall positive, successful teamwork experience. Factors including measurement issues, psychological simulation fidelity, and qualities of the team likely influenced these results. Measuring important team- and individual-level variables during additional space analog events, while considering factors related to psychological fidelity, will allow for the compilation of data to better understand the factors affecting teams in these unusual contexts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".