The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research has been to find out the effect Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) would have on the building of future brands in an organisation. Some beneficiary communities were segmented into focus groups for discussions on the ramifications of CSR. The discussions brought forth three main ramifications (namely; stakeholder expectations, collaborations and research & Development) which eventually led to the discovery of fifteen variables. A questionnaire was then prepared with these variables in mind. A sample of 200 employees from ten organizations was selected as respondents before these questionnaires were administered. The data collected on these variables were then analysed using factor analysis. The analysis revealed that, there exist strong correlations between some of the variables such as OLBS and PIC; CTP and PIC; COO and RCL and others as shown in the correlation matrix table. The analysis further indicated that the variables PIC, RCL, PSE, DVD, TT and OCD with Eigen values greater than 1 reflects a decreasing strength towards brand building as shown in the total variance table. Out of the 15 variables, component 1 with a loading of 10.840 best affects brand building instead of component 2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".