MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PLANT‐LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION: THE INFLUENCE OF MANAGEMENT VIEWS AND PLANT CHARACTERISTICS

2001· article· en· W2162443433 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessOrientation (vector space)Environmental management systemEnvironmental resource managementMarketingProcess managementIndustrial organizationEnvironmental economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As customers, the public and other stakeholders are increasingly demanding that manufacturing firms improve their approach to environmental management, some plants have moved to develop an orientation that is increasingly proactive. Synthesizing earlier research, environmental management orientation is defined here to include system analysis and planning, organizational responsibility, and management controls. The relationship between a proactive orientation and two sets of internal factors, specifically the personal views of plant managers and plant‐specific characteristics, was tested using survey data from the furniture industry. The production outlook for the plant was critical, with a favorable outlook fostering a more proactive environmental management orientation. After controlling for plant‐specific factors, personal views also were influential; an increasing emphasis on short‐term economic value was related to a more reactive plant‐level orientation. Thus senior corporate management can foster strong plant‐level environmental management through a more balanced emphasis on economic and ethical values and continued investment in a plant's long‐term viability.

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.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · 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