MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122205609 · doi:10.5539/ass.v7n4p77

Stakeholder Analysis: Using the Jigsaw Method for Ethical Dilemmas in Business

2011· article· en· W2122205609 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leigh Wood, Peter Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsJigsawViewpointsStakeholderSustainabilityBusiness ethicsGovernment (linguistics)Business analysisEngineering ethicsStakeholder analysisKnowledge managementBusinessProcess managementPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusiness modelComputer sciencePedagogyMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stakeholder analysis is an essential part of business education as students develop awareness of the different perspectives that influence business and the difficult decisions made by business, government and communities. An important aspect of learning is to think critically about who is presenting the viewpoint and the conclusions they have drawn. We have found that the Jigsaw Method is a powerful way to learn the importance of different viewpoints in the teaching of ethical practice and sustainability.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207