MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241965501 · doi:10.1177/1046496412468072

Cohesion

2012· article· en· W4241965501 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Group Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup cohesivenessCohesion (chemistry)ConceptualizationPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyGroup dynamicGroup (periodic table)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constitutive and operational definitions of group cohesion have varied across various disciplines in group dynamics. Recently, it has been suggested that a conceptualization of cohesion proposed by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley could have broad research applicability for different types of groups. However, results from a few studies have raised questions about the validity of this suggestion. One reason that these studies did not support the suggestion is that they failed to take into account the varied nature of groups and group cohesiveness. To clarify issues associated with measuring cohesion and testing various research questions, this article provides a general definition of cohesiveness, a discussion of the theoretical implications of that definition, and some suggestions for the conditions and procedures necessary to examine the structure of group cohesion in a variety of group 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.401
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.131 · 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