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

Corporate Communication: reputation in action

2008· article· en· W2497706593 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.122
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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Identity and ReputationFrench-language works237,207