Pour une approche dialectique de la relation entre recherche et pratiques entrepreneuriales : une relation en quête de sens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat, tant du point de vue de la littérature que des praticiens, il convient de constater que la distance est grande entre la recherche et les pratiques entrepreneuriales. De façon générale, on peut avancer que les connaissances de la recherche en entrepreneuriat sont peu, voire pas actionnables. En effet, les connaissances produites ne cadrent pas avec les connaissances attendues. C’est cette séparation entre chercheurs et praticiens qui est le point de départ de notre réflexion. Dans cette perspective, notre contribution ne se limite pas à relater l’évolution de la relation entre recherche et pratiques entrepreneuriales, mais elle permet aussi de s’intéresser aux modalités d’articulation afin de relier ces deux « mondes » apparemment séparés. Pour ce faire, nous avons eu recours à une clé de lecture basée sur une approche dialectique de cette relation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".