Communication Sequences Indicate Team Cohesion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Ad Hoc League of Legends Teams
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
Team cohesion is a widely known predictor of performance and collaborative satisfaction. However, how it develops and can be assessed, especially in fast-paced ad hoc dynamic teams, remains unclear. An unobtrusive and objective behavioural measure of cohesion would help identify determinants of cohesion in these teams. We investigated team communication as a potential measure in a mixed-methods study with 48 teams (n=135) in the digital game League of Legends. We first established that cohesion shows similar performance and satisfaction in League of Legends. teams as in non-game teams and confirmed a positive relationship between communication word frequency and cohesion. Further, we conducted an in-depth exploratory qualitative analysis of the communication sequences in a high-cohesion and a low-cohesion team. High cohesion is associated with sequences of apology->encouragement, suggestion->agree/acknowledge, answer->answer, and answer->question, while low-cohesion is associated with sequences of opinion/analysis->opinion/analysis, disagree->disagree, command->disagree, and frustration->frustration. Our findings also show that cohesion is important to team satisfaction independently of the match outcomes. We highlight that communication sequences are more useful than frequencies to determine team cohesion via player interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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