MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173870166 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n12p36

Management Report Ex. Art. 2428 c.c. in Local Authority Companies

2015· article· en· W2173870166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadia Oliva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGovernment, Law, and Information Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatorDimension (graph theory)AccountingBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The aim of this paper is to analyze the Local Authorities management reports, particularly those of nine companies involved in the water distribution services in light of the changes made by the legislator to Article 2428 c.c. The new article of the Civil Code has, indeed, provided for the integration, in the management report, of a series of figures and prospective non-financial tools, regarding the environment, employees relationships and the company’s performance, and provided information on developments of management, strategies, plans and business programs. The operational methodology used has been based on a detailed analysis of the existing literature on the matter and on an empirical analysis that has been actualized in the investigation of document sources (management reports and, where possible, social balance reports). What has emerged from the analysis is that, except that for few exceptions, there is a general lack of information on environment, risks and personnel. Indeed, through the recent changes and additions, the legislator has, in effect, made mandatory, albeit in an indirect (i.e. through the editing of the management report), the drafting of a mini social statement. This was necessary in light of the fact that the recent evolution of the role played by companies, and local authorities in particular, has led to the recognition of a social and environmental dimension of their activities, which combines and integrates with the management, economic, financial and competitive profiles.</p>

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicGovernment, Law, and Information ManagementFrench-language works237,207