MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147407355 · doi:10.7202/044656ar

Agir projectif, action collective et autonomie

2010· article· fr· W2147407355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean‐Pierre Bréchet, Alain Desreumaux

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective actionHumanitiesPolitical scienceAction (physics)SociologyPhilosophyPhysicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Une théorie de l’action collective ne peut délaisser la question de l’émergence et de l’autonomie des collectifs. On mesure pourtant que les théories de l’entreprise dominantes dans le champ gestionnaire n’abordent pas directement cette question. Cette insuffisance plaide pour une théorie de l’action collective fondée sur le projet, ou project-based view, et la reconnaissance d’un agir projectif. La prise en compte des projets des acteurs à l’échelle individuelle et à l’échelle collective permet de revenir sur la question d’une théorie de l’action collective pertinente pour les sciences de gestion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.318 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207