Self‐determination theory and its implications for team motivation
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
Abstract Despite decades of research on teams, there are still gaps in our understanding of motivational dynamics within teams and the emergence of team‐level motivation. We advance a new team motivation model that invokes self‐determination theory (SDT), multilevel theory, emergence processes, and identity construction. Using the conceptualization of motivation offered by SDT, we define team motivation as a collective source of energy driving the direction, intensity, and persistence of team activities. By using SDT to develop the process‐based team motivation emergence model, we describe the role of human psychological needs that are involved in the emergence of this collective construct. An interpersonal feedback loop intertwined with a team process feedback loop predict how team members' individual motivations converge and then transform into team‐level motivation through a process of identity construction. Propositions for testing the model are advanced, as well as suggestions for methodological and analytical considerations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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