Le financement participatif de proximité (FPP), moteur de communautés entreprenantes et effectuales au nord du Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore le rôle du financement participatif de proximité (FPP) dans l’émergence d’un entrepreneuriat effectual en contexte sahélo-saharien. Il s’appuie sur une étude ethnographique menée dans quatorze villages du nord du Burkina Faso. Ainsi, face aux limites des financements classiques, souvent peu accessibles aux entrepreneurs locaux, cette recherche examine comment les communautés rurales proposent un modèle de développement autonome, fondé à la fois sur leurs ressources endogènes et des dynamiques collectives. Le support théorique mobilisé est celui de l’effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001). Les résultats révèlent que l’approche effectuale favorise l’autonomisation économique, renforce les réseaux de solidarité et réduit la dépendance aux financements exogènes. De plus, contrairement aux critiques sur l’absence de vision stratégique dans l’effectuation, cette étude démontre que les communautés sahéliennes développent une gouvernance entrepreneuriale adaptative, combinant coconstruction progressive et structuration opportuniste. L’article contribue aux débats sur l’hybridation des modèles entrepreneuriaux en contexte africain. Sur le plan managérial, il invite à repenser les mécanismes de soutien en valorisant les solutions locales et la résilience collective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".