La RSE : mentir donne de si bons résultats
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it