Collaborative Skills Training Using Digital Tools: A Systematic Literature Review
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
The development of information and communication technologies has changed our way of working, emphasizing the need for individuals to develop collaborative skills. The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the extent to which these skills can be developed through the use of digital tools. A search of seven electronic databases, following PRISMA guidelines, yielded 18 relevant peer-reviewed articles. Analysis of the literature revealed that digital tools have the potential to enhance collaborative skills. However, the effects vary considerably, depending on which tools, methods, and measures are used. It also revealed that studies were conducted mainly in the social sciences, mostly among students, and half of them focused on short interventions. Another finding was that little is known about the features of the digital tools that actually contribute to these effects. Work on how digital tools contribute to the development of collaborative skills is still in its infancy, and more research based on rigorous methods and measures is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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