MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329131076 · doi:10.3917/ror.102.0043

La responsabilité sociétale et l’éthique comme vecteurs de l’engagement organisationnel

2015· article· fr· W2329131076 on OpenAlexaff
Andrée‐Anne Deschênes, Josée Laflamme, Fabien Durif

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’organisation responsable · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’engagement organisationnel est un concept clé dans le champ du management. De surcroît, la responsabilité sociétale de l’entreprise et l’éthique organisationnelle suscitent de plus en plus l’intérêt des chercheurs. Les mécanismes liant ces concepts sont encore peu explorés. Les objectifs de cet article sont 1) de décrire les recherches liant engagement organisationnel et responsabilité sociétale ou éthique de l’entreprise et, 2) d’en proposer un cadre opérationnel. À partir d’une méta-analyse descriptive, plus de 20 ans de recherche sur l’engagement organisationnel dans une perspective de responsabilité sociétale et d’éthique organisationnelle sont résumés. L’analyse approfondie de 26 références, à partir de 16 revues scientifiques distinctes, montre que la RSE et l’éthique organisationnelle ont un effet positif sur l’engagement organisationnel. Un cadre opérationnel est proposé pour fournir aux praticiens et aux chercheurs des appuis concrets pour élaborer une stratégie RSE.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0200.014
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.105 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’organisation responsableSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207