Protecting Human Rights from Corporate Actions: Augmenting Responsibility, Accountability and Professional Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No accessFULL TEXTJournal of Human SecurityOther Journal Article01 January 2010Protecting Human Rights from Corporate Actions: Augmenting Responsibility, Accountability and Professional Ethics Authors: Sandi Shannon Authors: Sandi Shannon University of Saskatchewan, email: [email protected] Google Scholar More articles by this author SectionsAboutView PDFExport CitationsAdd to FavouriteAdd to FavouriteCreate a New ListNameCancelCreate ToolsTrack CitationsCreate Clip ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedIn COPY LINK Abstract The expansion of globalisation has prompted the recognition that human rights are no longer only an issue of the state. Corporations - particularly those with international reach, have the ability to influence the lives of many. This research report outlines how corporate interactions demonstrate a capability to influence human rights. Applying social and environmental obligations to corporate entities in an absolute manner has not been realised. There have been a multitude of multilateral efforts made at standardising corporate practices in relation to social obligation - they have failed (Puvimanasinghe, 2007). Voluntary and self-regulating clauses have allowed for creative public relations campaigns to manipulate outcomes and delegitimise progress. This research will conclude by illustrating the shortcomings of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Full Text DOI Previous article Next article RelatedDetails View PUBLICATION DETAILSJournal:Journal of Human SecurityISSN:1835-3800Page Range:[22]-37First Page:22Last Page:37Source:Journal of Human Security, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010: [22]-37Date of Publication:January 2010Date Last Modified:05 September 2018 12:24Date Last Revised:06 October 2012Volume:6Issue:1SubjectHuman rightsSocial responsibility of businessInternational business enterprisesCorporations--Social aspectsInternational law--Social aspectsGeographic LocationOECD countries METRICS Downloaded 0 times Copyright© Human Security Institute, 2010Download PDFLoading ...
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".