Un cadre conceptuel commun à la planification et à la concurrence : formalisation théorique et implications pratiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette note part de la difficulté matérielle à mettre en oeuvre une planification efficace au sein de l’entreprise. Contrairement aux approches économiques traditionnelles qui s’intéressent surtout aux problèmes d’incitations; l’idée centrale consiste à faire de la complexité l’enjeu essentiel du problème. Dès lors, sur le plan théorique, planification et concurrence se rejoignent car s’il devient impossible de concevoir qu’il n’existe pas de planification sans un minimum de souplesse locale, il faut aussi concevoir qu’il n’existe pas de concurrence sans un minimum de règles mutuellement acceptées. On propose un cadre intégrant ces deux conceptions en formalisant l’idée de savoir commun et on en explore les implications concrètes à propos du rôle des études économiques dans la planification d’entreprise.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".