MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001576275 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n3p33

The Content of Corporate Social Responsibility Information: The Case of Greek Telecommunication Sector

2011· article· en· W2001576275 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grigoris Giannarakis, Nikolaos Sariannidis, Alexandros Garefalakis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityBusinessContext (archaeology)Dimension (graph theory)StandardizationCertificationPublicationContent analysisAccountingThe InternetMarketingPublic relationsTelecommunicationsAdvertisingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEconomicsPolitical scienceManagementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to illustrate what and how stand-alone Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports and web information provide to readers. These characteristics are recorded in predetermined schemes. The study focuses on the telecommunication sector, especially on fixed and mobile telephony and internet access providers in the Greek market. In all, five companies that provide CSR reports are identified. Their characteristics are categorized by four main predetermined dimensions, namely: type of communication, context, indicators and distinctions. The content analysis technique is selected as it is widely accepted and used in the field of CSR report research. The analysis indicates that three annual reports are almost similar in all dimensions and sub-dimensions. All of the companies publish their management systems certifications and awards and both Greek and English information versions exist; however, there are contradictory results in the dimension of indicators, the sub-dimensions of report guidelines and stand-alone reports. The value of the paper is to promote the standardization of CSR report.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.081 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207