MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988470891 · doi:10.7202/039552ar

Contrat et culture dans les relations interentreprises en Chine1

2010· article· fr· W1988470891 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal and Cross-Cultural Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La situation de la Chine en matière de respect des engagements contractuels dans les rapports entre entreprises est peu brillante et ce aux yeux non seulement des observateurs étrangers mais aussi des Chinois eux-mêmes. Pourtant, le recours aux contrats formels pour régler la vie sociale y est massif et systématique, et leur usage reste d’actualité dans les relations interentreprises. Comment expliquer cette bizarrerie ? Quel(s) rôle(s) jouent les contrats formels dans les transactions et coopérations interentreprises ? Une étude s’appuyant sur des entretiens qualitatifs dans cinq entreprises de différentes catégories nous a conduit à mettre en avant certains aspects de la culture chinoise pour apporter des éléments de réponse à ces questions. Il apparaît que les contrats formels fonctionnent comme une pièce d’un système, fondé sur la réciprocité, qui régit les coopérations interentreprises.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.298 · 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