MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230862275 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v21i8.2596

Making Sure the Reality Matches the Hype— Understanding What Hinders or Promotes Team Performance

2019· article· en· W4230862275 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Ask priceSet (abstract data type)Work (physics)Team effectivenessPsychologyPublic relationsKnowledge managementBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After years of experience one might be tempted to conclude that organizations have mastered the use of teams. Unfortunately, instances where team performance falls short are easy to find. Based on an analysis of actual work teams, this article summarizes and builds upon the state of knowledge as it relates to what affects the success of teams. A research study that further explored the factors that affect team success supports the findings presented here. The article concludes with a set of questions to ask when planning to use teams as well as a diagnostic tool for identifying team issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207