Placing care and hospitality at the heart of entrepreneurial support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faut-il déconstruire et revisiter la notion et les pratiques de soutien que sous-tend l’accompagnement entrepreneurial ? C’est la question que nous avons soumise aux collègues praticiens et enseignants-chercheurs réunis lors de la troisième édition de notre workshop autour des approches critiques de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial. En effet, après avoir débattu ensemble, sous cet angle critique, des structures d’accompagnement en 2018 à l’UCLouvain (Belgique), puis du processus d’accompagnement en 2019 à l’Université Laval (Québec), il nous a semblé intéressant pour l’édition de 2024 à l’ESSCA School of Management (Bordeaux, France) d’interroger la notion de soutien, censée être au cœur d’une démarche d’accompagnement. Cette interrogation s’inscrit dans le prolongement des travaux menés depuis 2020 par plusieurs chercheurs 1 soulignant que le soutien (support) est devenu un mot-valise utilisé pour embrasser une grande diversité d’initiatives du monde entrepreneurial et que ce soutien est encore trop souvent réduit à sa seule composante « technico-matérielle ».
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".