MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282555000 · doi:10.1177/10464964221104218

Confidence Is Key: Collective Efficacy, Team Processes, and Team Effectiveness

2022· article· en· W4282555000 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 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective efficacyPsychologyTeam effectivenessInterpersonal communicationCollective actionSocial psychologyProcess (computing)Team compositionInterpersonal relationshipKey (lock)Psychological safetyKnowledge managementApplied psychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated collective efficacy as a key predictor of team effectiveness (i.e., satisfaction and performance) and examined three behavioral team process dimensions (i.e., transition, action, and interpersonal processes) as novel mediators. Based on survey data from 160 project teams, we found a positive linear relation between collective efficacy and team effectiveness. In addition, we found that a higher frequency of action and interpersonal processes partially explains the positive benefits of collective efficacy on team effectiveness. Our study has unique practical and theoretical implications as it provides empirical evidence for distinct mechanisms of the collective efficacy-team effectiveness relation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.313 · 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