MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944342366 · doi:10.3917/ror.141.0033

Determinants of the presence of CSR committees within european boards of directors

2019· article· en· W2944342366 on OpenAlexaff
Edina Eberhardt-Toth, Jérôme Caby, Corinne Gendron, Lovasoa Ramboarisata

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’organisation responsable · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMolecular biologyHumanitiesGynecologyMedicineBiologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article porte sur une structure stratégique jusqu’à présent peu étudiée : le comité de responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise (RSE) au sein du conseil d’administration. Une analyse univariée ainsi que des régressions logistiques binaires sont réalisées sur les déterminants de la présence d’un comité RSE au sein du conseil d’administration de 427 entreprises de secteurs non financiers du STOXX Europe 600 Index pour les années 2006 à 2011. Outre la taille de l’entreprise et le secteur d’appartenance, nos résultats suggèrent que les comités RSE sont davantage présents dans les entreprises qui opèrent dans les juridictions de common law et lorsque le directeur général agit également comme président du conseil d’administration (PDG). Articulant ces résultats avec les éclairages des approches de la variété du capitalisme, des choix stratégiques et de la stratégie par les ressources, notre article contribue à la littérature encore non stabilisée sur la relation entre la RSE et la gouvernance en nuançant les hypothèses et conclusions antérieures sur les déterminants de la présence d’un comité RSE au sein du conseil d’administration.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’organisation responsableSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207