MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754503488 · doi:10.60082/2563-4631.1070

Canada-Ghana Engagements in the Mining Sector: Protecting Human Rights or Business as Usual?

2017· article· en· W2754503488 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia Kwakyewah, Uwafiokun Idemudia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Transnational Human Rights Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsCorporate social responsibilityMultinational corporationProfitability indexDutyBusinessDuty to protectSocial responsibilityEconomic growthLaw and economicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsLawEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While states have traditionally had the responsibility to protect human rights, multinational corporations (MNCs) are now increasingly expected to also respect human rights in their pursuit of profitability. However, the increased incidence of human rights violations associated with the activities of MNCs in developing countries has led to various efforts to promote the corporate duty to respect human rights. This article seeks to examine the extent to which Canada’s national Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy can contribute to the prevention or amelioration of incidences of human rights violation associated with the activities of Canadian mining companies operating in Ghana. The article suggests that while Canada’s national CSR strategy does present some opportunities, its ability to ameliorate incidence of human rights violations remains limited. The article concludes by considering the theoretical and practical implications for Canada-Ghana engagements in the mining sector.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Transnational Human Rights ReviewSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207