The Roles of Government Agency in Assisting CSR Project for Community Development: Analysis from the Recipients Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) initiatives by the corporations are playing increasingly significant role in the effort of contributing to community development particularly in the developing country. The international prominence of the initiatives in this area can be traced to the objectives of Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) that established corporations as partners of development. However, realizing the corporate sectors constraints in playing the roles as agents of development, the CSR initiatives need to be implemented with the involvement of the government agency to assist community development. This paper will explore the roles played by government agency in CSR project through a case study of successful CSR initiative in Bukit Awang, PasirPuteh Kelantan in Malaysia. A qualitative research strategy that explores the perspective of social actors that involved in the project and thematic data analysis are undertaken for that purpose. The result from the analysis reveals two main roles played by the government agency in CSR project by the corporation to the community. The roles are as the supporting agency and as leader in the community. These roles have assisted in the implementation of the CSR project with the objectives to develop the community involved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".