La rupture des alliances stratégiques : une grille d’analyse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les alliances constituent un levier important pour la compétitivité et le développement des firmes. Mais leur taux d’échec demeure élevé. Une grille d’analyse des ruptures d’ordre conflictuel est proposée, qui s’appuie sur la littérature existante. Elle distingue quatre grandes catégories de facteurs influençant la dynamique des alliances : des éléments de contexte, le profil des partenaires, les attributs de la relation et le pilotage de la coopération. Cette grille est ensuite utilisée pour l’analyse de quatre accords stratégiques qui se sont soldés par une rupture. Elle permet de proposer une explication plausible et suggère que, si le risque de rupture conflictuelle ne peut être complètement éliminé, une réflexion préalable approfondie et un management approprié peuvent contribuer à le réduire.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".