La pratique des consultants en stratégie : formule nomade, club ou loft?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Lorsqu’on parle d’une pratique professionnelle comme celle de la consultation en stratégie, on le fait généralement sous l’angle des compétences et des habiletés requises pour l’exercice du métier, sous l’angle de l’intervention auprès du client ou encore sous celui des types d’organisations professionnelles. On n’évoque généralement pas la façon dont s’articulent simultanément ces trois dimensions de la consultation. Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche portant sur la pratique de la consultation en stratégie, lesquels révèlent l’existence d’un noyau professionnel et de trois modes d’organisation de cette pratique : la formule nomade, la formule club et la formule loft. L’article aborde aussi le passage d’une formule de pratique à une autre.
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 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 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".