MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994060541 · doi:10.1002/pa.131

New corporate agendas

2003· article· en· W1994060541 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Hatcher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Affairs · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)AccountabilityGlobalizationGovernment (linguistics)InterdependencePublic relationsShareholderCorporate social responsibilityCorporate governanceQuality (philosophy)BusinessEconomicsPublic administrationPolitical scienceMarket economyFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Globalisation is changing the public affairs agenda for businesses operating in a more interdependent world. As the roles and responsibilities of government are being redefined, and the boundaries between business and government become less clear cut, today's business leaders are facing a daunting array of challenges. In the new age of corporate social responsibility, the needs of shareholders, consumers, employees, national as well as international regulators, watchdogs, NGOs and activist groups have to be satisfied. The number of variables that could affect the bottom line appears to be growing at an exponential rate; and losing the trust of stakeholders can be fatal. Business leaders should step up to the challenges that these developments are creating. They should be unapologetic about countering anti‐globalisation activists by demonstrating the real value that business can bring to the developing as well as the developed world. They should help to promote the virtues of greater transparency and accountability to their stakeholders. They should be actively engaged in fashioning new regulatory architecture that is pro‐competitive, one that makes trade possible. Business leaders should support efforts to develop better quality regulation of the increasing number of trans‐national issues that call for co‐ordinated, international responses. Ignoring or down‐playing these challenges carries a price: it plays into the hands of cyber cohorts and single issue groups, that are accountable to none but themselves, and leads to weaker public policy outcomes. Copyright © 2003 Henry Stewart Publications

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0230.016
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0140.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.012

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public AffairsSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207