Minimiser le « choc avec la réalité » : le rôle de la communication et de la transparence du conseil d’administration lors de la socialisation des directions générales d’OBNL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs organisations en économie sociale et en action communautaire vivent des changements de direction générale (DG). Dans un organisme à but non lucratif (OBNL), la DG est à l’interface entre l’équipe de travail rémunérée et un conseil d’administration (CA) composé de bénévoles. Cette particularité n’est pas sans effet sur la socialisation organisationnelle (SO) des DG, elle-même liée à l’intention de demeurer en poste et à la performance. Dès lors, il est pertinent de se demander : comment les contextes organisationnels et pratiques du CA influencent-ils l’expérience de SO des DG d’OBNL ? L’analyse de dix entretiens avec des DG d’entreprises d’insertion met en lumière l’importance de pratiques de transparence et de dialogue CA-DG dès l’étape anticipatoire pour faciliter la trajectoire de socialisation. Elle révèle également l’émergence de dynamiques paradoxales (cercles vertueux/vicieux).
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".