MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912124489 · doi:10.1177/1086026619831451

Finance and Management for the Anthropocene

2019· article· en· W2912124489 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Shrivastava, László Zsolnai, David M. Wasieleski, Mark Stafford‐Smith, Thomas Walker, Olaf Weber, Cary Krosinsky, D. E. Oram

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization & Environment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSustainable Finance and Green Bonds
Canadian institutionsFuture EarthUniversity of WaterlooConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropocenePlanetary boundariesSustainabilityStewardship (theology)Climate changeLeverage (statistics)StakeholderSustainability scienceEnvironmental resource managementStakeholder engagementEcosystem servicesEnvironmental ethicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsSocial sustainabilityEcosystemEcologyPublic relationsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Anthropocene era is characterized by a pronounced negative impact of human and social activities on natural ecosystems. To the extent finance, economics and management underlie human social activities, we need to reassess these fields and their role in achieving global sustainability. This article briefly presents the scientific evidence on accelerating impacts of human activities on nature, which have resulted in breach of planetary boundaries and onset of global climate change. It offers some potential leverage points for change toward sustainability stewardship by highlighting the important role of finance and economics in addressing climate change. We examine the role of financial stakeholders in addressing planetary boundaries and offer a modified stakeholder theory, from which we propose future directions for finance in the Anthropocene.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization & EnvironmentSame topicSustainable Finance and Green BondsFrench-language works237,207