MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2226745134 · doi:10.1515/bap-2012-0022

Multi-level corporate responsibility and the mining sector: Learning from the Canadian experience in Latin America

2012· article· en· W2226745134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kernaghan Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Politics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidiaryMultinational corporationLatin AmericansExtant taxonNormativeGlobalizationCorporate social responsibilityBusinessDeveloping countryPublic relationsPolitical scienceAccountingEconomic growthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary research question animating this article revolves around understanding how multinational mining corporations (MMCs) are responding to the twin pressures of globalization and localization to develop Corporate Responsibility (CR) approaches that apply at a global level and to their subsidiaries in various different jurisdictions, with particular attention being paid to the role of home, host and international factors in shaping the CR approaches of MMCs. The focus of attention is on the experience of Canadian MMCs in Latin America, using as an illustration the particular CR response of one Canadian MMC at its subsidiary Guatemalan mining operation. Research suggests that home country factors play an important role in shaping corporate CR approaches in a manner which take into account the circumstances extant at subsidiary operations in developing countries, as do transnational advocacy networks and global normative instruments.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0360.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and PoliticsSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207