Crowdfunding et diasporas : le financement participatif vient-il remettre en cause les acteurs du financement diasporique ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le financement participatif est une nouvelle tendance en finance entrepreneuriale. Les transferts d’argent des migrants et de leurs descendants sont importants. Notre propos est de confronter différentes littératures : celle en sociologie de l’immigration, sur les diasporas digitales et sur la finance entrepreneuriale. Nous avons fait des entrevues avec l’ensemble des acteurs clés français des plateformes diasporiques. Cela a permis de proposer une première description de ce marché avec des typologies des diasporas, les motivations à investir appliquées aux diasporas et les évolutions des motivations des investisseurs diasporiques en raison de l’apparition du crowdfunding . Les principaux constats portent sur l’équilibre entre dimension rationnelle et émotionnelle dans la décision d’investir pour les nouvelles générations de l’immigration, les compétences que les membres des diasporas rendent en retour à leur pays d’origine et la modification de la hiérarchie du financement provoquée par l’accès à des fonds en ligne.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".