La financiarisation du secteur forestier : le cas de Produits Forestiers Résolu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article examine le processus de financiarisation des grandes entreprises nord-américaines du secteur forestier à travers l’étude de cas d’une des plus grandes corporations en Amérique du Nord, et plus particulièrement au Québec, AbitibiBowater (Produits forestiers Résolu). Notre apport consiste à analyser le processus de la financiarisation à la fois d’un point de vue externe, par l’analyse des relations avec les analystes financiers, et d’un point de vue interne, par l’analyse du modèle d’affaires de l’entreprise. Il s’agit également de montrer que la financiarisation est un processus global qui touche même les activités à faible valeur ajoutée basées sur le contrôle du marché pour les débouchés et sur le contrôle de la ressource pour l’approvisionnement (modèle des staples). L’analyse de la financiarisation permet ainsi de repenser les liens entre l’activité industrielle et la sphère financière.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".