MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603620445 · doi:10.7202/1052499ar

Relations fonctionnelles et relations affinitaires, des influences réciproques ? Le cas d’une équipe de recherche

2018· article· fr· W2603620445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura d'Hont, Benoît Gérard

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À l’exception du courant des « workplace friendships », la plupart des travaux sur les relations affinitaires en management étudient leurs conséquences sur le fonctionnement des organisations. Évoluant dans des champs de recherche séparés, ces travaux peinent à offrir une vision contextualisée des interactions entre relations affinitaires et relations fonctionnelles dans les organisations. À partir d’une étude de cas réalisée sur une équipe de recherche, cet article propose ainsi d’éclairer les influences réciproques entre relations affinitaires et relations fonctionnelles au travail.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207