MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301730607 · doi:10.1080/2158379x.2016.1149310

Corporate responsibility or corporate power? CSR and the shaping of the definitions and solutions to our public problems

2016· article· en· W2301730607 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

VenueJournal of Political Power · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityPower (physics)Order (exchange)Field (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)Social responsibilityRepresentation (politics)Law and economicsWork (physics)Public relationsBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I will examine the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is increasingly presented as the socially acceptable way to deal with ethical, social and environmental issues stemming from economic activities. Using a public problems framework of analysis, I will build upon empirical work in the field of bio-engineering in order to argue that, on the contrary, CSR is a contentious notion. I will demonstrate that this is because CSR increases corporations’ involvement in the shaping of the definitions and solutions to our public problems and is thus based on a distribution of power and responsibility which is seen as potentially securing the power of corporations rather than offsetting it. In addition, this distribution does not correspond to most social actors’ representation of how power and responsibility should be shared in our society.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
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 head0.565
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.145 · 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