MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W124755466 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1195

Putting Ethics into Environmental Law: Fiduciary Duties for Ethical Investment

2008· article· en· W124755466 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciarySustainabilityInvestment (military)Business ethicsBusinessCapitalismEnvironmental lawFinanceEconomicsAccountingLawPolitical scienceDutyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that environmental law must target the financial sector, which sponsors and profits from environmental pillage. The rise of a system of finance capitalism has made the financial sector a crucial economic sector. A long-standing movement for socially responsible investment (SRI) has recently begun to advocate environmental standards for financiers. While the SRI movement has gained more influence in recent years, it has come at the price of jettisoning its former emphasis on ethical investment in favour of an instrumental, business case approach. Some modest legal reforms to improve the quality and extent of SRI have yet to make a tangible difference. An alternative legal strategy to promote SRI for environmental sustainability is suggested based on reforming the fiduciary duties of financial institutions. Fiduciary duties tied to concrete performance standards such as sustainability indicators provide a way to restore the ethical imperatives of SRI.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.251 · 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