MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992184638 · doi:10.3917/riges.333.0045

Leadership et communication : la forme ne l'emporte pas sur le fond

2008· article· fr· W1992184638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luc Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé On ne peut parler de leadership sans qu’il soit question de communication et d’image. Contrairement à ce qu’on pourrait attendre d’un conseiller en communication comme moi, je ne crois pas que la forme l’emporte sur le fond, que la communication l’emporte sur le réel. Le réel est la meilleure forme de communication. C’est pour cela que les politiciens font si souvent piètre figure. Le contenu n’apparaît pas soudainement, sans efforts. Les individus qui souhaitent diriger avec substance sont des gens responsables qui travaillent fort. Entêtés, c’est l’accumulation des gestes qu’ils exécutent et des décisions qu’ils prennent quotidiennement qui fait d’eux des leaders de substance. Ainsi, la meilleure façon de construire l’image d’un leader consiste à bâtir sur la substance et sur la transparence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.571
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.134 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestionSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207