MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562220003

La pensée stratégique et la planification stratégique dans les cégeps : exploration d'une relation possible

2013· article· fr· W2562220003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Veilleux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le nouveau management public (NMP) amene la mise en place de differents processus de gestion visant a identifier clairement les resultats a atteindre en terme de desserte de services publics et a programmer les moyens optimaux pour y arriver. La planification strategique est un des processus fondamentaux du cycle de gestion axee sur les resultats (GAR) au Quebec. La litterature recente suggere qu'il puisse exister une relation entre le fait de planifier strategiquement (produire un plan strategique) et penser strategiquement. Dans le contexte de la mise en place relativement recente d'exercices de planification strategique dans les cegeps au Quebec, nous explorons la relation possible entre ces deux variables en verifiant a posteriori si la planification strategique s'est effectivement appuyee sur la capacite de penser strategiquement chez les gestionnaires ou encore si ce type de planification a contribue a « enrichir » la pensee strategique des gestionnaires. Apres une presentation plus exhaustive du sujet, nous exposons notre cadre theorique. Il definit les concepts de planification strategique et de pensee strategique, laquelle s'articule a travers un modele, et situe certaines des particularites des cegeps a titre d'organisations publiques. La methodologie est ensuite decrite. Nous avons mene des entretiens semi-diriges aupres de sept gestionnaires de cegeps (en poste ou a la retraite) des regions de Quebec et de Chaudiere-Appalaches ayant pris part au second exercice de planification strategique dans leur etablissement. La presentation des resultats s'appuie sur les verbatims que nous avons tires de ces entretiens et que nous avons encodes. Les codes, utilises comme cles d'interpretation, nous permettent d'identifier des indices qui alimentent notre presentation des resultats. Notre chapitre consacre a l'analyse et la discussion explique tout autant les constats que nous effectuons que les indices qui ne peuvent pas etre confirmes. Notre reflexion critique sur la methodologie met en perspective differents elements, lesquels nous permettent de repondre clairement a notre question de recherche sans toutefois negliger les nuances necessaires en lien avec le caractere exploratoire de l'etude.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207