Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devant les difficultés, les entrepreneurs se doivent de toujours persévérer, mais en pratique, la plupart d’entre eux passent par des périodes de doute au cours desquelles leur engagement se fait plus incertain. Paradoxalement, ces remises en question peuvent contribuer à la perpétuation de l’activité entrepreneuriale : s’arrêter et prendre le temps de douter peut permettre aux entrepreneurs de faire le point sur leurs attentes et de redécouvrir l’entreprise sous un nouveau jour. C’est très souvent à cette condition que les entrepreneurs reconstruisent l’engagement nécessaire pour poursuivre l’entreprise : un engagement souvent très différent de celui qui avait motivé sa création. À partir de 50 entretiens, cet article propose un modèle en quatre étapes : engagement anticipé, engagement dans l’action, engagement confus et engagement du second souffle. Partant de là, nous invitons les accompagnateurs et les partenaires du projet à soutenir les entrepreneurs dans ces moments difficiles afin de leur laisser le temps de retrouver la force de continuer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".