MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118483662 · doi:10.7202/1026030ar

Pertinence du tutorat comme dispositif d’accompagnement du repreneur individuel après la reprise. Une étude empirique à l’échelle européenne

2014· article· fr· W2118483662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Thévenard‐Puthod, Christian Picard, Barthélemy Chollet

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si l’accompagnement entrepreneurial est un champ de recherche en croissance, il existe encore peu de travaux sur l’accompagnement « repreneurial ». Cet article s’intéresse donc à la spécificité des besoins des repreneurs en matière d’accompagnement post-reprise et aux formes que cet accompagnement peut prendre. S’appuyant sur un projet test réalisé à l’échelle européenne sur un échantillon de 889 reprises, les auteurs confirment empiriquement la pertinence du tutorat comme forme particulière d’accompagnement dans cette phase délicate. Ils montrent ensuite dans quels types de situation et pour quels types de repreneur un tutorat s’avère le plus bénéfique.

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), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207