Theorizing Team Process Through Cultural–Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): Networking and Knotworking
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In healthcare, permanent teams are increasingly replaced by fluid combinations of expertise (knots) corresponding to the problem at hand.
“In healthcare, permanent teams are increasingly replaced by fluid combinations of expertise,”
From Using activity theory to transform medical work and learning (2021) · cites this paper as Bleakley 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using activity theory to transform medical work and learning
Engeström, Y., & Pyörälä, E. (2021) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2020.1795105 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bleakley, A.
- Affiliations
- Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bleakley, Alan
- ORCID
- Bleakley, Alan
- Venue
- Advances in Medical Education
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2013-12-17
- Pages
- 139-147
- ISSN
- 2211-1298 (ISSN-L)
- 2211-1301
- OpenAlex
- W155709530
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Advances in medical education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Keywords
- cultural-historical activity theory, team processes, team communication, knotworking, boundary crossing, ad hoc teams, team dynamics, work-based learning, healthcare teams, team roles
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
