Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, there has been much interest in various forms of participation in the workplace and in its impacts on learning from work for individuals and organisations. Teamwork has been the object of much attention in labour economics, in sociology of work, as well as in human resources management (Tremblay, Rolland & Davel, 2000; Davel, Gomez da Silva, Rolland & Tremblay, 2001). Collaborative work and learning have also been the object of much attention in HRM and organisational learning debates, as well as in education circles (Henri & Lundgren, 2000). Much of this interest stems from gains that organisations can expect to obtain from interaction between workers in terms of quality of products, innovation, productivity, and the like. Knowledge management has also spurred interest in recent years, partly on the basis of these expected gains from a better management of the knowledge hidden within organisations. More recently, the concept of communities of practice has been put forward as a form of knowledge management which paves the way to attainment of the various organisational objectives: productivity, quality, innovation, and so forth. In our view, this last concept is closely related to teamwork issues, and we will show how in the following pages.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".