MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121356689 · doi:10.1111/0045-3609.00129

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness

2002· article· en· W2121356689 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley Cragg, William Woof

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Society Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign Corrupt Practices ActTransparency (behavior)BusinessLanguage changeLegislationConventionAccountingPolitical sciencePublic administrationLawEnforcement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by the U.S. government in 1977 was a watershed event in the fight against corruption in the postwar era. Its criminalization of bribery on the part of U.S. citizens and corporations conducting business overseas, and its provisions for mandatory self-regulation through internal control mechanisms, maintenance of transaction records, and other accounting practices made it unique: between the passage of the Act in 1977 and the adoption of the OECD anti-corruption convention in 1997 no other nation initiated similar legislation. Recent studies, however, raise significant questions about the efficacy of this American initiative. Concerns have taken a number of forms. In 1999, Transparency International released the results of a survey ranking nineteen leading exporting countries by the degree to which their companies were perceived to be paying bribes abroad. The United States ranked ninth of nineteen countries in the resulting ‘‘Bribe Payers Index.’’ Accompanying the United States in ninth position was Germany, a country where, until very recently, bribes paid to

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Society ReviewSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207