MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791691030 · doi:10.14428/rcompro.vi2.413

La RSE : mentir donne de si bons résultats

2014· article· fr· W2791691030 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernard Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Communication & professionnalisation · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir de l’analyse de dizaines d’exemples d’engagement d’entreprises internationales ou canadiennes en matière de responsabilité sociale, nous avons fait les constats suivants : (1) les politiques de RSE ne sont trop souvent que l’expression de vœux pieux; (2) elles ne sont assujetties à aucune obligation d’applications concrètes ; (3) elles peuvent être démenties par des pratiques contraires à la politique ; (4) elles sont rentables car le public croit davantage l’expression de générosité que les mensonges qui les entourent. Dès lors, les entreprises ne se gênent aucunement pour projeter d’elles-mêmes une image d’entreprise responsable tout en ayant des pratiques condamnables, car en général la sanction de l’opinion publique n’est pas au rendez-vous. L’exemple des Prix Pinocchio en France en témoigne. Having analysed dozens of examples of the commitment of international and Canadian businesses in the area of social responsibility, we arrive at the following observations: (1) CSR policies are all too often merely a matter of lip service; (2) they do not involve any obligation to apply concrete measures; (3) they may be contradicted by practices that are contrary to the policy; (4) they are profitable because public belief is more strongly influenced by the expression of generosity than by the fact of the lies surrounding them. As a result, businesses do not hesitate to project the image of a responsible enterprise while engaging in reprehensible practices, because in general public opinion does not cast blame upon them for doing so. The example of the Pinocchio Awards in France is a reflection of this.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0160.022
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.005

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Communication & professionnalisationSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207