L’économie de la proximité : regard critique sur une théorie limitée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’économie de la proximité est généralement dominée par deux grandes écoles : l’école française et l’école hollandaise. Si d’un côté on distingue une approche interactionniste renfermant deux types de proximités (géographique et organisée) et une approche institutionnaliste distinguant trois types de proximités (géographique, organisationnelle et institutionnelle), de l’autre côté, on fait valoir l’existence de cinq types de proximités : géographique, organisationnelle, institutionnelle, sociale et cognitive. En dehors de ces postulats de base, submergent d’autres formes de proximités inscrites dans des contextes de liens technologiques, fonctionnels, socioéconomiques, etc, ce qui rend le concept de proximité hyper flexible. Cela semble constituer un signe de fébrilité pour ladite théorie et freine véritablement sa progression. Par conséquent, l’objectif de cet article est de faire une analyse critique de la nomenclature des approches à l’économie de la proximité. Notre recherche contribue à une revue de la littérature sur la question mais propose aussi de dépasser les limites gênantes de ladite théorie en apportant des éléments d’enrichissement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".