MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508687935 · doi:10.1057/9781403990044_4

Management, Work and the State before the 1980s

2003· article· en· W2508687935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steve Jefferys

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan Books · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)CapitalismAnachronismState (computer science)CarrionEconomic historyEconomyHistoryPolitical scienceEconomicsLawArchaeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1980, a handful of extremely wealthy families still controlled more than half of France’s top 200 firms. Far from being an anachronism, the way large French capitalists networked together in a combination of family ownership and interlocking directorships and their privileged access to the state were key to the success of French capitalism during the ‘30 glorious years’. Family networking was rooted in the most successful parts of French business culture. One study of 2, 103 firms for which records exist in ten different French industrial centres over the whole period 1780–1935 found that 17 per cent defied the ‘clogs to clogs in three generations’ historical rule of thumb, and that there were extreme regional variations in firm longevity: in Eastern France (Alsace, Lorraine and Franche-Comté) over half the firms in 1935 were between three and six generations old, while in Normandy and Northern France the proportion was one quarter. The differences in survival rates appeared to lie in firm culture: those that survived longest appeared to stress practical techniques more, to be run by entrepreneurs with engineering and grandes écoles (polytéchnique) backgrounds, to have introduced social welfare schemes, to have a Protestant work ethic and to have remained under family control (Lévy-Leboyer 1997).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan BooksSame topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207