Entreprenariat social et entreprenariat collectif : synthèse et constats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉL’article présente les résultats d’une recherche portant sur les notions d’entrepreneur social et d’entrepreneur collectif. Après avoir défini le concept d’entrepreneur, nous voyons comment les qualitatifs « social » et « collectif » transforment l’idée d’entreprendre en un projet plus intégré où les objectifs sociaux, politiques et économiques sont « harmonieusement » agencés. La recherche repose essentiellement sur la réalisation d’une revue de littérature de textes clés produits en langue française et anglaise en Amérique du Nord et en Europe. L’analyse des données recueillies nous permet de présenter des critères simples pour proposer une définition de ces notions qui devrait rendre compte de la réalité des pratiques rencontrées sur le terrain et des contributions théoriques et critiques faites par les auteurs et travaux consultés. Elle permet aussi de présenter une dizaine de constats qui illustrent tant les points de convergence que les divergences observées entre les types d’entreprenariat étudiés.ABSTRACTThis article presents the results of a study bearing on the notions of social entrepreneur and collectiveentrepreneur. After defining the concept of entrepreneur, I look at how the adjectives “social” and “collective” transform the project of being an entrepreneur into a more integrated one where the social, political and economic objectives are “harmoniously” organized. The study is essentially based on a literature review of key English- and French-language texts written in North America and in Europe. The analysis of the collected data allows me to present simple criteria for proposing a definition of these notions that should take into account both the reality of the practices encountered in the field and the theoretical and critical contributions made by the authors and the texts that I consulted. It also enables me to present ten observations that illustrate both the points of convergence and divergence between the types of entrepreneurship that I studied.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".