MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978013282 · doi:10.7202/1015398ar

Réseaux collectifs : les effets du capital social sur l’innovation. Le cas de l’innovation sociale dans les entreprises de l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire

2013· article· fr· W1978013282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Éric Persais

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSocial innovationSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce papier se donne pour objectif d’éclairer les incidences de la participation à un réseau collectif sur l’innovation sociale dans une entreprise. L’auteur repart des différentes dimensions du capital social, à savoir les interactions sociales, la confiance et la vision partagée entre les membres d’un réseau pour mesurer leur rôle et celui des structures collectives dans le processus d’innovation et l’innovation sociale. Cette recherche est basée sur une étude menée auprès d’un échantillon d’entreprises françaises du secteur de l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire (ESS). Les résultats tendent, en partie, à étayer l’hypothèse d’une relation significative entre (1) le capital social et le soutien d’un réseau et (2) les échanges et partages d’expériences, ces derniers ayant un impact sur (3) le processus d’innovation et l’innovation sociale dans les entreprises. Les responsables des structures fédératives de l’ESS trouveront ici des arguments pour convaincre les dirigeants d’entreprises sociales, soucieuses de montrer leur différence avec celles de l’économie classique, de s’impliquer dans ces réseaux, lieux de partages d’expériences et sources d’innovation sociale.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207