La collaboration comme changement organisationnel : le cas d'Uniterra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article retrace le cheminement d’une collaboration entre deux organisations, le Centre canadien d’étude et de coopération internationale (CECI) et l’Entraide universitaire mondiale du Canada (EUMC), pour la conception et la mise en œuvre du programme conjoint de coopération volontaire Uniterra. Il se concentre en particulier sur la gestion de la dimension culturelle au cours de la phase initiale du rapprochement entre ces deux organisations à but non lucratif de développement international en 2003. Ce rapprochement a abouti à la création du programme Uniterra en 2004. Dans un premier temps, l’article présente le cadre conceptuel de la gestion de la dimension culturelle du rapprochement entre organisations utilisé pour cette intervention. Dans un deuxième temps, il décrit le contexte de cette collaboration et les objectifs stratégiques des deux organisations. Dans un troisième temps, il montre comment on a essayé d’éviter l’écueil des cultures organisationnelles pour augmenter les chances de réussite de cette collaboration. Enfin, il expose aux gestionnaires intéressés les cinq apprentissages principaux de cette expérience.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".