Trois modèles classiques d'échec de la succession intergénérationnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Dans plusieurs entreprises familiales, la succession intergénérationnelle est prédéterminée par des facteurs personnels. La question n’est pas de savoir qui sera le meilleur P.D.G., mais de reconnaître les problèmes liés à la succession et de les résoudre. Cette étude à la fois exploratoire et inductive examine ces problèmes dans les successions qui échouent. On trouve à la source de ces dernières une relation inadéquate entre le passé de l’organisation et son présent. On constate un attachement rigide au passé, un rejet en bloc du passé ou encore un mélange inapproprié entre le passé et le présent. Nous appelons ces grandes tendances les modèles conservateur, rebelle ou oscillant; chacun d’eux est caractérisé par des orientations distinctes en ce qui concerne la stratégie, l’organisation et la gouvernance. Cet article discute la nature de ces modèles, leurs causes potentielles et leurs possibles implications pour la performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".