Les fondements incomplets de l’incomplétude : Une revue critique de la théorie des contrats incomplets*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La théorie des contrats incomplets regroupe l’ensemble des travaux qui modélisent les causes et les conséquences de l’incomplétude contractuelle à partir de l’hypothèse d’une rationalité standard. Elle définit un contrat incomplet comme un contrat ne mentionnant pas certaines contingences susceptibles de se produire durant une transaction. Cette incomplétude s’explique par l’invérifiabilité de ces contingences par un tiers, c.-à-d. par l’existence d’une asymétrie d’information entre les contractants et le tribunal chargé de l’exécution du contrat, due à l’existence de coûts de contractualisation. Si les parties doivent investir en actifs spécifiques, se pose alors le problème duhold up. Cet article présente les principaux modèles et débats qui animent la théorie des contrats incomplets dans une perspective critique. Il semble en effet que les concepts de renégociation et d’incomplétude modélisés par cette approche sont très particuliers et portent à confusion.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".