A tool for reducing the time loss and dissatisfaction associated with meetings: Validation of the staff meeting effectiveness questionnaire
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace meetings have a bad reputation and are often perceived as ineffective. However, few scientific tools are available to evaluate meeting effectiveness and to enable facilitators to improve. The aim of this paper is to describe the content and construct validation of the Staff Meeting Effectiveness Questionnaire. A review of the scientific and professional literature revealed five themes and 21 sub-themes as a basis for evaluating meeting effectiveness, or lack thereof. From these themes, we built a pilot questionnaire containing 60 items that was submitted to a sample of 575 healthcare managers. The responses were analysed using principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, which reduced the questionnaire to 42 items organised under 10 factors that possess satisfactory psychometric properties.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 it