LES ORGANISATIONS HYBRIDES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we study hybrid organizations, namely those practicing social entrepreneurship and those practicing durable entrepreneurship. These organizations do not choose between the contradictory requirements fostered by the objectives that they pursue, be they double objectives (social and economic) or triple (social, economic and environmental). Rather, they choose to accept the tensions inherent in the pursuit of contradictory objectives. This study is based on a cluster analysis of 244 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It identifies and distinguishes between three main types of organization, commercial SMEs, social entrepreneurship SMEs and sustainable SMEs. These types of SMEs, even though they resemble each other in their structural characteristics (size, age, revenue), differ in terms of the actualization of their entrepreneurial and market orientations. Dans cet article, nous étudions les organisations hybrides, c’est-à-dire celles de l’entrepreneuriat social et de l’entrepreneuriat durable. Ces organisations, plutôt que de choisir entre les exigences contradictoires posées par les objectifs doubles (social et économique) ou triples (social, économique et environnemental) qu’elles s’efforcent d’atteindre, choisissent d’accepter les tensions créées par la poursuite d’objectifs contradictoires. L’étude permet, à partir d’une analyse de regroupement réalisée auprès de 244 PME, d’identifier et de distinguer trois principaux types d’organisation, soit les PME commerciales, les PME d’entreprenariat social et les PME d’entrepreneuriat durable. En outre, ces types de PME, dont les caractéristiques structurelles (taille, âge, revenus) ne sont pas différentes, diffèrent en ce qui concerne l’actualisation de l’orientation entrepreneuriale et de l’orientation envers le marché.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".