Le discours organisationnel et la construction de la responsabilité sociale d’entreprise : une comparaison d’entreprises chiliennes et canadiennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research’s objective is to study, from an ethnomethodological perspective, how firms of two countries (Chile and Canada) and three productive areas (Bank, telecommunications and forestry) construct their social responsibility from their discourse, that is, the way they position themselves in relation to this topic. Even we do not want to generalize, this comparison between Canadian and Chilean firms aims to know to what extent firms established in countries representing different degrees of development construct different or similar discourses in relation with the question of their social responsibility. In order to address this question, we will study this subject by analyzing the CEOs’ messages or letters introducing their social responsibility reports, which will allow us to understand how firms construct and position themselves in relation with the question of their social responsibility. Based on these analyses, we discuss the similarities and differences identified and clarify so to what extent social responsibility is constructed on global references, or on the contingencies that appear from the various contexts in which these discourses are produced.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".