Bricolage, effectuation et planification : le cas de la démarche entrepreneuriale d’une EIRP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En réponse à des appels à contribution au sujet des processus entrepreneuriaux des entreprises à internationalisation rapide et précoce (EIRP), cet article examine la démarche entrepreneuriale d’un dirigeant d’EIRP au cours de l’évolution du cycle de vie organisationnel de l’entreprise créée. Pour ce faire, nous mobilisons les concepts de bricolage, d’effectuation et de planification. Le décryptage de l’évolution dans le temps de ces trois comportements organisationnels permet de saisir avec précision la dynamique plurielle et singulière du processus entrepreneurial d’entreprises qui, dès leur création, intègrent les contraintes et les opportunités de la globalisation. À cette fin, l’étude de cas longitudinale d’une EIRP française analyse les comportements qui sous-tendent les trois approches et leur mutation au cours des six étapes de son processus entrepreneurial : l’idéation, la préparation du lancement, le démarrage, la croissance internationale, la maturité et le déclin. L’analyse fournit une compréhension des situations qui requièrent davantage une approche causale, une approche relevant du bricolage ou encore de l’effectuation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".