MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894810478 · doi:10.7202/1051310ar

Le management relationnel d’une association de l’économie sociale et solidaire1

2018· article· fr· W2894810478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dominique Phanuel

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les tenants de la « - Relational View- invitent à une lecture partenariale des parties prenantes de l’organisation. Cet article mobilise trois perspectives complémentaires des parties prenantes. L’approche normative exige la reconnaissance des parties prenantes, l’approche descriptive s’appuie sur leur connaissance et l’approche instrumentale ou stratégique fait référence au management du portefeuille relationnel. Comment identifier le portefeuille de parties prenantes de l’organisation ? Quelles stratégies relationnelles formuler et mettre en oeuvre ? Nous répondrons à ces questions à l’appui d’une étude de cas issue de l’économie sociale et solidaire : l’association « A.I.D.E.R ».

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207