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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Benjamin J. Richardson

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.045
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.078
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicProperty Rights and Legal DoctrineFrench-language works237,207