MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070307432 · doi:10.3917/riges.333.0083

De la monomanie à la mégalomanie : Harold Geneen et ITT

2008· article· fr· W2070307432 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abraham Zaleznik

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Development and Digital Transformation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Lorsque Harold Geneen, l’ancien président-directeur général d’ITT, est décédé, les notices nécrologiques n’ont pas manqué de souligner les aspects marquants de sa vie professionnelle : une capacité de travail inouïe, des efforts inlassables pour augmenter la taille d’ITT par des acquisitions, son acharnement à défendre le conglomérat comme forme d’entreprise, ses tentatives pour influencer la Division antitrust des États-Unis et ses offres d’argent à la CIA pour empêcher l’élection de Salvador Allende à la présidence du Chili. Fidèle à sa philosophie selon laquelle les gestionnaires doivent gérer, Geneen considérait l’intervention des gouvernements comme une barrière à surmonter ; sa vision concernait autant les entreprises nationales que les entreprises à l’étranger. Mais il avait beaucoup de mal à surmonter les obstacles dressés devant son programme d’expansion. C’est ainsi qu’il est passé, sur le plan psychologique, de la monomanie (l’obsession de la croissance) à la mégalomanie (la folie des grandeurs). Cette mutation a causé à ITT et à lui-même de graves problèmes, car pesaient sur eux des allégations de corruption, de parjure et d’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures d’un pays étranger.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestionSame topicEconomic Development and Digital TransformationFrench-language works237,207