MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Categorical Cleaning: An exploratory study of sustainability induced divestitures, 1992-2010

2012· article· en· W2901311444 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Gehman

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivestmentSustainabilityBusinessSustainability organizationsCategorizationSustainability reportingPortfolioCorporate sustainabilityIndustrial organizationPerspective (graphical)Marketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainability has emerged as an increasingly important category of concern. Reflecting this shift, organizations are being evaluated on the basis of sustainability criteria. Firms in particular may find themselves rated as unsustainable because of their portfolio of businesses. I theorize that when confronted with negative sustainability ratings, rather than decoupling their unsustainable practices symbolically or displacing them substantively, firms might instead choose to divest them altogether. Seen from this perspective, firms achieve sustainability by dissociation. Using an unbalanced panel of diversified firms from 1992 to 2010, I test whether negative sustainability ratings are related to divestitures, and whether the strength of this relationship is moderated by the extent to which firms are targeted by shareholder activists, and whether or not firms engage in sustainability reporting. Drawing on my analysis, I propose a cultural perspective on organizational boundaries, as well as implications for divestitures research, categorization theory, and sustainability research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207