MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417401015 · doi:10.1522/revueot.v34n3.2017

Caractérisation des pratiques de distribution des PME agroalimentaires au Sénégal : une analyse par la théorie des pratiques

2025· article· fr· W4417401015 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Organisations & territoires · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Qualitative analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de cette recherche est d’identifier et d’analyser les pratiques de distribution des PME agroalimentaires sénégalaises qui concourent à la mise à disposition réussie des produits auprès des clients finaux. Pour ce faire, nous avons mobilisé la théorie des pratiques en faisant une étude qualitative exploratoire reposant sur des entretiens individuels semi-directifs auprès de 10 PME agroalimentaires. Nous avons complété ces entretiens par des observations des pratiques réelles. L’analyse des données issues du terrain met en exergue trois pratiques de distribution : la coopération avec les distributeurs, le respect des délais de livraison et la minimisation des coûts. Ces résultats ont permis également d’identifier les matériels utilisés pour bien mener les pratiques de distribution, le savoir-faire mobilisé et la signification attribuée à chaque pratique. L’étude permet de proposer des lignes d’actions que les PME agroalimentaires sénégalaises pourraient mettre en œuvre pour une distribution efficace de leurs produits et des recommandations aux autorités étatiques pour un meilleur accompagnement de ces entreprises.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Organisations & territoiresSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207