MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312355301 · doi:10.7202/1092817ar

L’auto-ethnographie collaborative organisationnelle (ACOR) : quand le « je » devient « nous »

2022· article· fr· W4312355301 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Benoit Bourguignon, Harold Boeck

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches qualitatives · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesIntrospectionSociologyArtPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de cet article est d’offrir à la communauté scientifique une méthode émergente pour la recherche dans les organisations, soit l’auto-ethnographie collaborative organisationnelle (ACOR). Bien que l’auto-ethnographie soit pratiquée depuis quelques dizaines d’années, sa version collaborative est plus rare et n’a été que très peu utilisée en recherche organisationnelle. L’article fait ressortir les avantages de cette méthode sur l’ethnographie et l’auto-ethnographie individuelle, particulièrement pour ce qui est de la rigueur scientifique, de l’introspection, de la rétrospection et de l’éthique. L’article présente aussi les étapes de base de l’ACOR en s’appuyant sur une étude qui a été effectuée auprès d’une équipe de vente.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches qualitativesSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207