Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".