La juridicité des engagements socialement responsables des sociétés : regards croisés Québec-France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’adoption de codes de conduite et de gouvernance est devenue une pratique courante pour les sociétés. Malgré les avantages de l’approche volontaire que traduisent ces codes se pose la question de la force de ces engagements pris unilatéralement. En effet, ceux-ci peuvent sembler d’une utilité limitée pour les juristes qui les considèrent souvent comme des gestes de relations publiques et non telle une divulgation comportant des obligations réelles et contraignantes. Or, ces engagements ont une véritable force normative qui peut être révélée par l’entremise de différents outils. Au Québec comme en France, le droit accorde un rôle principalement informatif aux codes de conduite, en ce qu’ils permettent de transmettre de l’information aux investisseurs, aux consommateurs et aux tribunaux. Ce rôle fondamental, bien qu’il soit actuellement sous-estimé, a vocation à faciliter la surveillance des principaux acteurs du marché qui peuvent, par leurs interventions, inciter les sociétés à respecter les engagements qu’elles ont volontairement choisi d’adopter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".