MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851130702 · doi:10.3917/rsg.271.0029

La démarche décisionnelle du gestionnaire en situation complexe : une modélisation

2015· article· fr· W1851130702 on OpenAlexaff
Marc-André Morency, Jeanne Simard

Bibliographic record

Venue˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion/˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion, Direction et gestion · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La modélisation que nous proposons vise à repérer plus facilement les figures que prend la transformation des manières de penser et d’agir dans la pratique du gestionnaire, tant dans le domaine technoscientifique que juridique, moral ou éthique. Inspirée par une épistémologie pragmatique et constructiviste, cette modélisation permet de mieux visualiser la forme itérative de la démarche décisionnelle. Cette démarche parcourt quatre moments distincts : 1) l’immédiat, traduisant la conscience habituelle des acteurs sociaux, des professionnels, des gestionnaires ; 2) le champ des médiats, c’est-à-dire les outils permettant d’observer, d’analyser, de voir autrement ; 3) l’immédiat expliqué, qui résulte de cette activité épistémologique, méthodologique et théorique, substituant une certaine vision des choses à une autre, et enfin ; 4) l’intervention réflexive, qui sur cette base nouvelle, apporte réponse aux défis de la situation, en produisant de nouvelles solutions aux problèmes qui se posaient à la conscience immédiate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion/˜La œRevue des sciences de gestion, Direction et gestionSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207