Interculturalité et pérennité des partenariats interentreprises : le cas des alliances stratégiques internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tandis que certains chercheurs perçoivent l’interculturalité comme un frein à la pérennité des alliances stratégiques internationales, d’autres la considèrent par contre comme un facteur de longévité de ces relations. Cette divergence, que l’on retrouve d’ailleurs chez bon nombre de dirigeants, influe sur l’objet du management interculturel. Elle conduit à minimiser les différences culturelles ou à intégrer les systèmes culturels des entreprises partenaires. Ces deux approches engendrant des procédés managériaux différents, notre travail vise à analyser leur complémentarité. Dans cette perspective, nous avons mené seize entretiens semi-directifs auprès de dirigeants français et tunisiens opérant dans huit alliances asymétriques franco-tunisiennes stables. Les résultats révèlent qu’un management interculturel bimodal, basé sur l’exploitation des avantages de la diversité culturelle et l’inhibition de ses inconvénients, est source de durabilité de la coopération.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".