MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951440696 · doi:10.7202/009128ar

Responsabilité sociale et régulation de l’entreprise mondialisée

2004· article· fr· W1951440696 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Corinne Gendron, Alain Lapointe, Marie‐France Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article analyse le potentiel régulatoire de la responsabilité sociale dans un contexte de mondialisation économique à partir d’une distinction entre ses trois dimensions : les pratiques, le discours et le questionnement. Sans comprendre la dynamique des initiatives corporatives de responsabilité sociale, le discours sur la responsabilité sociale élude les questionnements auxquels l’entreprise doit aujourd’hui faire face pour conserver sa légitimité et assurer son ancrage dans la société. Mais plutôt que de déplorer leur manque d’effectivité, les auteurs avancent que les mesures volontaires de responsabilité sociale telles que les codes de conduite ou ce que certains appellent la soft law sont annonciatrices d’un cadre de responsabilité sociale en voie d’institutionnalisation à l’échelle mondiale. Sur la base d’une analyse de l’expérience européenne, ils montrent que deux cadres de responsabilité sociale au potentiel régulatoire très différent sont actuellement en concurrence, et concluent en jetant les bases du système régulatoire qui semble se configurer à l’échelle internationale.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations92
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207