Shelf life is a parameter of the lifetime distribution of a food product, usually the time until a specified proportion (1-50%) of the product has spoiled according to taste. The data used to estimate shelf life typically come from a planned experiment with sampled food items observed at specified times. The observation times are usually selected adaptively using ‘staggered sampling.’ Ad-hoc methods based on linear regression have been recommended to estimate shelf life. However, other methods based on maximizing a likelihood (MLE) have been proposed, studied, and used. Both methods assume the Weibull distribution. The observed lifetimes in shelf life studies are censored, a fact that the ad-hoc methods largely ignore. One purpose of this project is to compare the statistical properties of the ad-hoc estimators and the maximum likelihood estimator. The simulation study showed that the MLE methods have higher coverage than the regression methods, better asymptotic properties in regards to bias, and have lower median squared errors (mese) values, especially when shelf life is defined by smaller percentiles. Thus, they should be used in practice. A genetic algorithm (Hamada et al. 2001) was used to find near-optimal sampling designs. This was successfully programmed for general shelf life estimation. The genetic algorithm generally produced designs that had much smaller median squared errors than the staggered design that is used commonly in practice. These designs were radically different than the standard designs. Thus, the genetic algorithm may be used to plan studies in the future that have good estimation properties.

Cette thèse rassemble principalement des contributions en économie de la science à laquelle les deux premières parties sont consacrées. La première teste l'importance des choix méthodologiques dans la mesure de la production scientifique et étudie les canaux de diffusion de la connaissance. La deuxième s'intéresse aux déterminants individuels et locaux de la productivité des chercheurs et au différentiel de promotion entre hommes et femmes sur le marché du travail académique. Sont établis les résultats suivants : les choix méthodologiques dans la mesure de la production scientifique n'affectent que très peu les classements des institutions de recherche. Les citations et les poids associés à la qualité des journaux mesurent globalement la même productivité de la recherche. La localisation des chercheurs a un impact sur leur productivité dans la mesure où certaines universités génèrent davantage d'externalités que d'autres. Ces externalités sont plus importantes là où les chercheurs sont homogènes en terme de performances, où la diversité thématique est grande, et dans une moindre mesure dans les grands centres de recherche, lorsqu'il y a plus de femmes, de chercheurs âgés, de stars et là où les chercheurs sont connectés à des co-auteurs à l'étranger. Si les femmes sont moins souvent Professeur des Universités (par opposition à Maître de Conférences) que les hommes, ce n'est ni parce qu'elles sont discriminées dans le processus de promotion, ni que le coût de promotion (mobilité) est plus important pour elles, ni qu'elles ont des préférences différentes concernant le salaire et le prestige des institutions dans lesquelles elles travaillent. / The core of this thesis lies in the field of economics of science to which the two first parts are devoted. The first part questions the impact of methodological choices in the measurement of research productivity and studies the channels of knowledge diffusion. The second part studies the impact on individual publication records of both individual and departments' characteristics and analyse the gender gap in occupations on the academic labour market. The main results are the following: methodological choices in the measurement of research productivity do not impact the estimated hierarchy of research institutions. Citations and journal quality weights measure the same dimension of publication productivity. Location matters in the academic research activity: some departments generate more externalities than others. Externalities are higher where academics are homogeneous in terms of publication performance and have diverse research fields, and, to a lower extent, if the department is large, with more women, older academics, stars and co-authors connection to foreign departments. If women are less likely to be full Professor (with respect to Assistant Professor) than men, this is neither because they are discriminated against in the promotion process, neither because the promotion cost (mobility) is higher for them, nor because they have different preferences for salaries versus department prestige. A possible, but not tested, explanation is that women self-select themselves by participating less in or exerting lower effort during the promotion process.