L'influence de la pensée de James March sur la recherche francophone en management stratégique : une analyse bibliométrique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes James March's influence on strategic thought in the last decade by locating, in bibliographies of recent works on strategy, explicit references to March, then by analyzing, within the same articles and papers, the "citation context." This examination shows a significant presence of March in the bibliographies of the beginning of the decade (presence in 10% of the articles, mainly dealing with strategic processes) and increased importance between 1998 and 2000 (21% of the papers and articles). The works of March essentially add input to lines of research on management tools and on the themes of learning, cognition, leaders, and innovation. The additional analysis of the co-citations of the authors reveal five axes in the use of March's thinking: organizational, psychological, economic, evolutionist, and sociological. Each of these readings involves a distinctive definition of strategy: product of decision-making, mental creation, economic phenomenon, product and driving force of a dynamic evolution, or outcome of a behaviour.
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 | 0.039 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.099 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".