International Financial Institutions and the Challenges of Global Business Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business ethics are moral principles and doctrines that determine behavior in the business world. Although the purpose of every business is to earn profits, it also ought to pay a major role in society by ensuring fair practices. Instead of fairness and equality, greed has taken over the present business scenario leading to unethical business practices. World Bank and International Monetary Fund have been criticized for harsh imposition of austerity measures on member borrower countries. IMF programs are connected with adverse social action like reduced investment in public health and education in the recipient countries resulting in ethical violation and lack of corporate social responsibility to the communities served. A number of World Bank financed projects have social and environmental effects for the people in the affected areas resulting in ethical issues criticism. The IMF and World Bank have also been criticized for violation of ethical issues of equity and fair play.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".