Le rôle des communautés de pratiques et de leur coordination dans le développement et le déploiement des innovations dans une multinationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La littérature met en avant le rôle des communautés de pratique (CoPs) dans la constitution et le partage de connaissances tacites et ancrées. Cependant, leur impact sur les processus d’innovation reste l’objet d’un débat. Nous nous attachons à mieux comprendre le rôle des CoPs dans l’innovation à l’échelle d’une firme multinationale. A partir de l’étude de cas approfondie d’une innovation développée au sein d’une filiale et déployée dans une autre, nous montrons le rôle critique de l’implication conjointe de deux CoPs de natures différentes, l’une pilotée et soutenue par le top management et l’autre autonome et spontanée. Nous spécifions les modes de coordination entre ces CoPs qui ont soutenu le développement et le déploiement de l’innovation dans la FMN.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".