Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude analyse le taux de pénétration des nouvelles formes d’organisation du travail (NFOT) ainsi que leurs déterminants. Pour ce faire, les perspectives contingente et institutionnelle ont été mises à profit afin de caractériser les facteurs explicatifs des NFOT dans 252 entreprises québécoises. Les résultats de cette étude sont concluants : la perspective contingente explique mieux la présence des NFOT lorsque le taux de pénétration de ces pratiques est élevé, alors que la perspective institutionnelle s’avère dominante lorsque ce taux est faible. Concrètement, les résultats suggèrent que la stratégie d’affaires, la gestion participative, le type de culture et la qualité totale, caractérisant la perspective contingente, sont les facteurs déterminants d’une pénétration élevée des NFOT, alors que le secteur d’activités, la concurrence à l’international et la structure de gouvernance, caractérisant la perspective institutionnelle, expliquent mieux la présence des NFOT lorsque celles-ci sont implantées superficiellement.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".