MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126013254 · doi:10.4324/9781351161008-2

Corporate Power and Responsibility: A Citizenship Perspective

2017· book-chapter· en· W2126013254 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Moon, Andy Crane, Dirk Matten

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)CitizenshipPower (physics)Corporate social responsibilityPolitical scienceBusinessPublic relationsLawComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter provides the metaphor of citizenship to business–society relations. It addresses the drivers of business power and the movement for corporate social responsibility. The chapter argues that the concept of citizenship is appropriate for consideration of the power and responsibility of corporations for several particular reasons. Corporations are generally regarded as the most prominent organizations of contemporary capitalism in part because of the employment, production, investment and wealth that they account for. The possession of power is often a pre-requisite to the ability to take responsibility, yet its possession is also regarded as a reason for which its custodians, users and beneficiaries are expected to exercise responsibly. More specifically, citizenship is an organizing principle for aligning powers and responsibilities among members of political communities, and between them and other institutions wielding power and responsibility.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207