MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071407852 · doi:10.1177/0007650308319739

An Historical Perspective on the Interplay of Christian Thought and Business Ethics

2008· article· en· W2071407852 on OpenAlexaff
Darlene Bay, Kim McKeage, Jeffrey McKeage

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness & Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristianityEnlightenmentPerspective (graphical)Construct (python library)Environmental ethicsSet (abstract data type)SociologyBusiness ethicsWork (physics)Positive economicsBusiness environmentEpistemologyPublic relationsMarketingBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsPhilosophyBusiness administrationReligious studiesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To provide effective guidance for business decisions, a set of ethical principles must be stable over time, rather than responding to changes in the business environment for expediency sake. This article examines the ability of religious principles to maintain such stability by reviewing the historical relationship between commerce and Christianity, beginning with early Christianity and concluding with the Enlightenment.The changes in five constructs are examined: ownership of land, acquisition of wealth, attitude toward work, charging of interest and acceptability of trade. For each construct, the attitude evidenced in early Christianity was, at least to some degree, inimical to business as we view it today. That perspective changed over time, with the practice becoming at first acceptable and later even admired. The authors conclude that ethical principles based on referents from outside business are ineffective as a check on the undesirable effects of business on society.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness & SocietySame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207