Management Stratégique et Libertés : pour une science noo-politique du concevable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 50 ans de recherche, la politique générale d’entreprise est passée du statut de réflexion pratique synthétique et intégratrice à des champs de recherche majoritairement analytiques, explicatifs, fragmentés, aux résultats peu robustes, peu actionnables et peu contextualisés. Leur capacité opératoire comme leur aptitude critique s’en trouvent limitées. Une nouvelle science morale et politique, ou « noo-politique », du concevable implique une ouverture épistémologique et un pluralisme méthodologique permettant d’articuler la connaissance et les impératifs éthique et pragmatique de l’action. Il ne s’agit plus seulement de décrire ou d’expliquer ce qui est mais de participer de façon créative et critique à la conception des possibles, à la discussion du souhaitable et à les composer avec les situations rencontrées. Ce qui nécessite ouverture épistémologique et pluralisme méthodologique.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".