The Analysis And Assessment Of An Ethics Management Tool - Canadian Marketing Association’s Code Of Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this study is the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the Canadian Marketing Association (CMA). The focus is on the structure, contents and the role of this tool. The developing, upgrading and implementing assigned to this code are compared to the standards proposed by Institute of Business Ethics (London).The fact that the CMA is an organization built upon a professional criteria places all its ethical rules in the area of professional business ethics, but being an association that postulates behavioural frames for marketers, it involves the behaviour of firms and individuals that may, or may not be members of the CMA. Using this type of code, proposed for analysis, the CMA replaces with its contents other business ethics tools (credo, policies and procedures, conduct codes etc.) Actually, Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice presents both the overall strategies that the ACM uses concerning ethics management and the specific policies and procedures for controversial situations from a moral point of view.
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 | 0.040 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".