Les stratégies de coopétition comme source de tensions : le cas EADS-Thales dans l’industrie des satellites de télécommunications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les stratégies de coopétition combinent deux forces contradictoires : la compétition et la coopération. Ces stratégies créent des tensions fortes entre les coopétiteurs. Les tensions coopétitives sont étudiées, dans les recherches antérieures, au niveau inter-organisationnel mais pas au niveau intra-organisationnel. Afin de combler ce vide, une étude de cas approfondie est réalisée dans l’industrie des satellites de télécommunications. Un projet de satellite mené en coopétition entre EADS et Thales est analysé. Les résultats confirment l’existence de tensions au niveau inter-organisationnel et révèlent des tensions au niveau intra-organisationnel. Une typologie des différentes tensions coopétitives en fonction des niveaux d’analyse est proposée.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".