MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029685830 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v13n3p150

Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of Corinth Pipeworks S. A.

2020· article· en· W3029685830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kartalis Nikolaos, Tsimpri Eugenia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilitySustainable developmentSocial responsibilityOrder (exchange)BusinessPresentation (obstetrics)Plan (archaeology)MarketingAccountingPublic relationsPolitical scienceFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investors around the world show steadily increasing support for environmental and social issues. Therefore, the majority of the companies are in favor of adopting sustainable and socially responsible actions. On one hand, Corporate Social Responsibility, according to which companies operate considering the common good of society and environment, assist in reducing environmental and social problems, but always focusing in respect of people, society and economy. On the other hand, there is the Sustainable Development, which follows the same parameters as CSR (Economy, Environment and People), with the difference that -in the light of economic growth- corporations look forward and plan their changes in order to secure their future (i.e. reducing waste, assuring supply chains, developing new markets, health and safety, etc.). In the first part of the article, both of the concepts above -namely SD and CSR- will be investigated with the aid of literature review, targeting in to not only comprehend their importance but also to recognize the changes that have occurred throughout the decades. Moreover, the article will be focused in current global standards such as GRI and ISO 26000. In the second part, through the presentation of Corinth Pipeworks S.A. case study, it will be compared how the above concepts (as well as GRI and ISO 26000) operate in a company’s real time and will be examined, how those practices have evolved in a three years’ time-period.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207