Navigating Representational Gaps: Traversing Construal Levels and Investing in Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Representational gaps (rGaps), which refer to inconsistencies in definitions of a group's problem, are notoriously pernicious and enduring. Team cognition research has primarily focused on increasing similarity and sharedness among members. However, this emphasis is insufficient when an rGap is present, as teams must retain and integrate diverse, and often conflicting, perspectives even as they converge on a solution. In this study, we build new theory on how groups navigate rGaps by embedding incompatible problem definitions in a simulation and recording 23 groups completing the simulation to examine the navigation process from before members are aware that an rGap exists to implementing a concrete solution to a given task. Qualitative analysis revealed a three‐phase process (i.e., Realizing, Integrating, Aligning) of navigating rGaps in which groups traverse multiple construal levels (i.e., Concrete, Problem, Comprehensive). We then explored why some groups ceased progression through the process and how this influenced the representations in their final solution (i.e., neither, single, bifurcated, integrated). Notably, investing in disruptive and generative uncertainty was critical to facilitating progression, challenging the assumption that uncertainty should be reduced, rather than invested in, to avoid harming performance. Our findings yielded important insights for the rGaps, uncertainty, and construal level literatures.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".