Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article poursuit les efforts de réhabilitation de l’institutionnalisme pragmatiste de John Rodgers Commons et tente de montrer que le cadre commonsien est encore largement d’actualité dans l’analyse et la recherche en relations industrielles. Après avoir discuté de l’institutionnalisme comme fondement de la discipline, l’auteur présente le cadre commonsien comme une théorie de l’action en discutant notamment de l’importance de l’action collective en « contrôle » de l’action individuelle. Il poursuit sur l’explication des principaux concepts d’institution, de groupe actif (going concern), de transactions et sur le bien-fondé de la conception commonsienne de la négociation. Il termine en discutant de la possibilité de considérer la théorisation commonsienne comme une théorie générale des relations industrielles, en raison de son caractère transdisciplinaire, de son pragmatisme et de sa spécificité au regard de la théorisation usuelle, notamment sur le plan de la méthode et de la capacité d’analyse.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".