The temporal phase structure of team interaction under asymmetric information distribution: The solution fixation trap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Organizations facing dynamic environments typically use teams of individuals to collect and share information in order to make timely and accurate joint decisions. The mature body of prior research concerning team information processing indicates a consistent bias in team decision‐making under conditions that asymmetrically distribute information across team members; this body of research, however, focuses mainly on identifying significant relationships between static inputs and decision outcomes. As a result, little is known regarding the actual team processes that may influence decision outcomes. We introduce the notion of the temporal phase structure of team behaviors to the asymmetric information distribution research stream and identify relevant phase characteristic variables that show significant differences between lower‐ and higher‐performing teams in a team decision‐making simulation. We find evidence suggesting that higher‐performing teams are more able than other teams to prolong productive discussion of information without falling into a pattern of solution fixation. Finally, we identify specific behaviors that are likely to trigger beneficial and detrimental phase shifts. We close with a discussion of this evidence and suggestions for related future research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".