MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034196012 · doi:10.3917/riges.351.0047

Le coaching de gestionnaires : mieux le définir pour mieux intervenir

2010· article· fr· W2034196012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalEmployment and Social Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Le coaching de gestionnaires vise à fournir aux cadres les divers instruments nécessaires pour se développer et pour accroître leur efficacité. Cet article présente une synthèse de la documentation sur le coaching de gestionnaires. Après avoir expliqué l’engouement pour cette pratique de gestion, nous décrivons les étapes du coaching de gestionnaires et les modèles d’intervention sur lesquels il s’appuie. Nous traitons aussi des contextes où l’on fait appel au coaching de gestionnaires, à savoir le changement organisationnel, la transition professionnelle, l’amélioration continue et une performance déficiente. Ensuite, nous décrivons les avantages et les inconvénients du recours à un coach interne ou à un coach externe et nous relevons les compétences et les caractéristiques d’un bon coach . Finalement, nous donnons des conseils pour optimiser l’efficacité des interventions de coaching de gestionnaires et s’assurer qu’il respecte des considérations éthiques.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.321 · 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