Les pôles de compétitivité, des formes organisationnelles aptes à innover en gestion des ressources humaines ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les mises en réseaux se développent de par le monde pour générer de l’innovation collaborative; en France, elles prennent notamment la forme des « pôles de compétitivité ». La littérature a analysé ces réseaux territoriaux d’organisations. Mais alors que leur feuille de route consiste également à produire de l’innovation managériale, via des pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines qui se situent à l’interface d’organisations différentes, l’état des connaissances reste faible sur ce point. Les pôles de compétitivité français représentent-ils une forme organisationnelle innovant également en gestion des ressources humaines ? A l’aune d’une approche contextualiste, mais aussi d’un cadre théorique associant entrepreneuriat institutionnel et acteur-réseau, cet article interroge les modalités de l’innovation managériale dans douze pôles de compétitivité français. Il met en lumière la principale innovation managériale de ces réseaux territoriaux : l’innovation de processus.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".