Framing of Opposing Corporate and Activist NGO Website Communications: Impacts on Perceptions of Tripartite Sustainability Values and Joining Online Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated the impacts of the diverse framings of corporate and activist NGOs website communications of a proposed Canadian oil-sands pipeline on participants' perceptions of a) the tripartite sustainability values of environmental safety, economic benefits and community social relations and b) the willingness to join the corporate and activist NGOs online networks. Given the importance of sustainability issues in business education curricula and research, the participants were drawn from a population of undergraduate students. They were exposed online to either neutral information (control group), or randomly exposed initially to either the Corporate or Activist NGOs website communications. These exposures were subsequently reversed creating a combined group exposed to both agenda framings. Results demonstrated the persuasive power of both communication framings. The Corporate communication created positive perceptions of tripartite sustainability values, whereas the Activist NGOs' created negative perceptions. After exposures to the opposite communications, the Corporate group's perceptions changed from positive to negative, whereas the Activist NGOs perceptions only became somewhat less negative. Also there was a stronger willingness to join an Activist NGO rather than the corporate online action network. The empirical findings reflect the powerful diverse impacts of agenda framing on a highly controversial societal issue. Concerned citizens, researchers, politicians and academics should not restrict their website consultation to just one framing of such complex wicked issues. The present findings also have important implications for developing a more balanced and ethical business curriculum in the area of sustainability and common good.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".