Le financement des entreprises en démarrage et en croissance : le point de la situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le financement des entreprises en croissance demeure un problème très important qui, dans de nombreux pays, dont le Canada, met en jeu des politiques publiques multiples et des montants considérables. Les résultats des efforts des pouvoirs publics ne semblent cependant pas toujours être à la hauteur des attentes. En avril 2010, un symposium sur la finance entrepreneuriale et le capital de risque a rassemblé, à Montréal, 60 experts venus de 18 pays. Nous résumons ici les présentations, discussions et propositions faites lors de cette activité. Nous avons choisi trois dimensions particulièrement importantes du point de vue des politiques publiques au Canada. La rentabilité de l’industrie du placement privé et du capital de risque est faible et les investisseurs institutionnels en ont pris conscience. Les émissions initiales sont en forte diminution, ce qui limite les possibilités de sortie très profitable du capital de risque. La conception et l’implantation de politiques publiques en faveur du capital de risque sont difficiles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".