Espaces et comportements organisationnels : nouvelles organisations, nouvelles théorisations, nouvelles inquiétudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A la confluence de nouvelles organisations et de nouvelles théorisations de l’espace, le texte introductif vise d’abord à mettre en lumière les difficultés des approches traditionnelles de l’espace en études organisationnelles à composer avec les dimensions sensibles, habitées, en mouvement et en résistance, des espaces organisationnels. Il appelle ainsi à poursuivre le tournant spatial des études en organisation. Les articles du numéro s’inscrivent dans une telle ambition, en montrant les questions et enjeux des nouvelles configurations, de la territorialisation et leurs conséquences sur le travail. Ils proposent de nouvelles perspectives spatiales sur la proximité, la visibilité, le sens, le contrôle ou la résistance. Enfin seront détaillées de nouvelles directions, ambitions, inquiétudes pour la recherche en comportement des organisations, suggérant des avenues qui envisagent l’espace comme une dimension centrale afin de penser les organisations, à l’aune des mutations du travail mais aussi d’enjeux décoloniaux.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".