MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515032934 · doi:10.1111/apps.12081

Employee Attributions of Corporate Social Responsibility as Substantive or Symbolic: Validation of a Measure

2016· article· en· W2515032934 on OpenAlexafffund
Magda Donia, Carol‐Ann Tetrault Sirsly, Sigalit Ronen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttributionMeasure (data warehouse)Corporate social responsibilityPsychologySocial psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using three samples aggregating over 1,000 working adults, we developed and tested a measure of Substantive and Symbolic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR‐SS). The resultant 14‐item CSR‐SS scale is a reliable and parsimonious measure that is best represented by two broad and distinctive factors—substantive and symbolic attributions of CSR. Our findings provide evidence of a solid nomological network and criterion validity, supporting predictions that when employees attribute CSR as substantive, greater benefits accrue to the individual and the organisation as a whole than when CSR is attributed as symbolic. This measure contributes a valid and reliable tool toward the advancement of micro CSR research on both negative and positive consequences of organisations’ CSR proclaimed initiatives.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations103
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied PsychologySame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207