A cross‐cultural assessment of attitudes regarding perceived breaches of ethical conduct by both parties in the business‐consumer dyad
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent initiatives in business curricula have included emphases on global business and ethics. Using 28 scenarios which reflect potential concerns regarding the conduct of either business or a consumer, this research combines these issues by comparing the ethical predisposition of business students in Australia with their Canadian counterparts. A sample of 264 students indicated that students in both countries generally hold high expectations for the behaviour of business and consumers. Both groups exhibited quite similar views in relation to the 28 consumer and business‐related scenarios. When comparing Canadian students to Australian students, four significant differences were documented in the 14 scenarios which address the behaviour of business entities. The assessment of attitudes regarding questionable consumer actions provided even more homogeneity as only one statistically significant difference was identified. The study concludes by documenting a series of attitudinal differences on the part of groups defined not by nationality, but rather on the basis of gender or age. These demographic differences were more pronounced than were the differences across the two countries. 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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it