PME et firmes multinationales : performance des alliances asymétriques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objet de cet article est d’analyser les effets des asymétries existant entre les PME et les multinationales sur la performance de leurs relations d’alliance. Dans cette perspective, les asymétries ont été définies en termes de taille, de culture organisationnelle, de ressources et compétences et d’expériences dans de telles alliances. Les effets de ces asymétries sont analysés qualitativement du point de vue de dix PME françaises de l’industrie aéronautique. Deux résultats principaux découlent de cette étude. Premièrement, certaines asymétries (taille, culture organisationnelle et expériences d’alliances) peuvent être à l’origine de difficultés relationnelles entre les partenaires. Cela dit, malgré les asymétries entre les partenaires, ces alliances génèrent des résultats positifs (performance financière et apprentissage organisationnel) grâce à la complémentarité entre les ressources apportées par les PME et des multinationales impliquées.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".