MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069566965 · doi:10.7202/039551ar

Biais Cognitifs et Prise de Risque Managériale : Validation Empirique dans le Contexte Tunisien

2010· article· fr· W2069566965 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amél Belanès, Rym Hachana

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le contexte de prise de décision est entaché par des biais cognitifs. Se basant sur un échantillon de 46 entreprises tunisiennes cotées durant 1997-2006, nous avons d’abord observé l’influence de trois biais (sur-confiance, mimétisme et illusion de contrôle) sur la perception du risque et ensuite, nous avons analysé la relation entre cette perception et la prise de risque effective. Nos résultats concluent à l’existence d’une relation positive entre le biais de sur-confiance et de mimétisme et la prise de risque et à une relation négative entre le biais de l’illusion de contrôle et la prise de risque managériale.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFrench-language works237,207