MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184114352 · doi:10.22495/cocv6i2c1p8

Corporate governance and business ethics: Pictures of the policies

2008· article· en· W2184114352 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

VenueCorporate Ownership and Control · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceBusiness ethicsExploitSet (abstract data type)BusinessAccountingInformation ethicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyses the ethics policies of the world’s four largest oil companies, as communicated on their websites, using the Leximancer approach. The text contained in the ethics policies of these firms was used in a content analysis and then mapped. This article illustrates a powerful, but simple and relatively inexpensive way for executives and corporate governance scholars to examine ethics policies, particularly as they are communicated online. The intent is to demonstrate a research and analysis method. The major contribution of this study is the use of a new research approach and set of tools that ethics researchers, policy makers and managers can exploit. The technique is easy to use, and the results are similarly straightforward to interpret.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.055 · 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