La gestion de la tension paradoxale de la coopétition au sein des communautés de pratique en contexte d’innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cette recherche est de comprendre comment une communauté de pratique inter-organisationnelle (CoPi) gère l’effet paradoxal entre collaboration et compétition. La littérature souligne le potentiel de leur logique pour le développement de l’innovation collaborative mais ne prend pas en compte l’effet de la concurrence entre ses membres. L’analyse d’une CoPi d’entrepreneurs de startups innovantes au Brésil montre l’adaptation des régulations internes lors de l’intégration de nouveaux membres. Des modes de régulations indirectes et externes s’expriment également au sein de la CoPi. De par la complémentarité de ces modes de régulation, la CoPi est considérée comme facilitatrice de relations de coopétition communautaires.
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 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".