MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123357295

La théorie du millefeuille. Le rôle du contexte

2006· preprint· fr· W3123357295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michel Kalika

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2006
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PhoneSample (material)HumanitiesPsychologyPhysicsGeographyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the questions raised by the growing use of electronic communications is how far they have an impact on meetings functioning. Data have been collected via phone survey among a sample of 2,500 managers from 2001 to 2005. The results show that substitution between electronic and face-to-face communications intervene only in a minority of firms (less than 15% of cases). The improvement of meetings functioning is observed in one quarter of the sample. Thus, it confirms the superposition effect of communication tools; we propose to name this effect the “Millefeuille theory”.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207