Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d'une enquête-pilote sur les alliances stratégiques. Il s’intéresse en particulier à la perception qu'ont les responsables d'entreprises du succès des accords. Il tente de relever les différences d’opinion chez les dirigeants de PME ou de plus grandes entreprises, ou selon que les personnes interrogées appartiennent à une entreprise ayant ou non une expérience en matière d’alliances. Les propositions soumises aux répondants sont issues de la littérature récente. Dans la première partie de l’article, nous présentons la perception qu’ont les responsables d’entreprises des fonctions sur lesquelles portent en priorité les accords, du type de partenaire recherché et des raisons qui poussent les entreprises à établir des accords. La seconde partie est consacrée aux objectifs prioritaires poursuivis, dans l’établissement des alliances, aux critères de succès et aux aides au succès des accords. La troisième partie traite des facteurs critiques du succès dans la gestion des alliances.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".