MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2497706593 · doi:10.4324/9780203931943-15

Corporate Communication: reputation in action

2008· article· en· W2497706593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Watson, Philip J. Kitchen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Identity and Reputation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationReputation managementBusinessPublic relationsAction (physics)Quality (philosophy)Outcome (game theory)PerceptionAffect (linguistics)MarketingPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reputation is of immense importance to all organizations as it paves the wayto acceptance and approval by stakeholders. It underpins competitiveadvantage by demonstrating differences from other similar organizationsReputation does not occur by chance. It relates to leadership, management,and organizational operations, the quality of products and services, and-crucially-relationships with stakeholders. Reputational performance is alsoconnected to communication activities and feedback mechanismsReputation is a collective representation of images and perceptions thatinvolves relationships with stakeholders. It is gained, maintained, enhanced,or detracted from over time. All members of an organization make acontribution to building and sustaining a reputationBrand, identity, and reputation are sometimes used interchangeably butinaccurately. Image is an organization’s self-presentation; brand is its offer interms of products, services, and customer relationship; whereas reputation isbestowed by the perceptions and interactions of othersReputation management is a term whose validity is contested. There are thosewho consider that reputation cannot be managed and that it is an outcome ofinteractions between the organization and its stakeholders; others make thecase that it can be developed in a planned manner by organizations that arefully aware of their operating environment and respond constructively to itClosely allied to reputation is relationship management, which is beingstrongly advocated as the new paradigm for public relations. This movespublic relations away from message creation and dissemination to thedevelopment of mutually beneficial relationships between organizations andstakeholders (publics). Strong, positive relationships are the bedrock of goodreputationsCase studies show how positive and negative aspects of corporate decision-making, communication and operation performance affect reputation. Insome instances, a good reputation has a defensive halo effect in protectingan organization in a crisis; whereas a poor or declining reputation limits anorganization’s operational freedom and can lead to its failureBest practice in reputation management has found that CEOs (or equivalentleaders) are very important in reputational matters in some countries (Italy,Canada, and the USA) but much less so in others (Belgium, France, and theUK)A good reputation is an excellent calling card: It opens doors, attracts followers, brings in customers and investors-it commands our respect.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0240.017
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Identity and ReputationFrench-language works237,207