MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017110818 · doi:10.1177/027046760102100502

Green Advertising and Green Public Relations as Integration Propaganda

2001· article· en· W2017110818 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)CorporationVariety (cybernetics)AdvertisingIllusionPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceMarketingLaw and economicsSociologyLawEngineeringComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When faced with an environmental problem, corporations can either deal with it or merely give the appearance of managing it. The latter is often the case cause the corporation can maintain a positive public image while not actually doing anything to solve the problem. Advertising and public relations are the tools that are commonly utilized to create this illusion. The first part of this article illustrates the variety of ways in which green advertising and green public relations are exploited to mislead the public regarding environmental issues. The many examples cover issues such as global warming, toxic chemicals, the precautionary principle, and environmental education. The second part of the article shows that Jacques Ellul’s theory of integration propaganda provides a good explanation for what has been observed about green advertising and green public relations.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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