MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065605413 · doi:10.3917/riges.263.0075

Le commerce de détail : d'un marketing stratégique de l'offre à celui de la demande

2001· article· fr· W2065605413 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
JoAnne Labrecque, Daniel Lesceux

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse multidisciplinary academic research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les producteurs et les distributeurs ont de tout temps essayé à divers degrés de convaincre l’«individu-client» d’acheter leurs produits. Aujourd’hui, cette affirmation est toujours d’actualité, si ce n’est que nous assistons peut-être à la prise du pouvoir du client et à un changement fondamental des relations commerciales et de leur organisation. À la suite d’un marketing stratégique de l’offre exercé tour à tour par le fabricant et le distributeur, nous croyons que, désormais, c’est le client qui a les moyens de définir «son marketing» et d’influencer celui des entreprises. Dans cet article, nous faisons un survol de l’essor du commerce de l’Antiquité au XX e siècle et de l’évolution des formes de vente constatées au cours des deux derniers siècles en France et en Amérique du Nord. L’évolution stratégique du management et du marketing des industriels comme des distributeurs est également discutée. Enfin, nous présentons ce que nous pensons être l’évolution future de la relation marchande en incitant le lecteur à réfléchir aux adaptations qu’elle demandera au commerce de détail, ce qui correspond au marketing de la demande.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestionSame topicDiverse multidisciplinary academic researchFrench-language works237,207