Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its landmark corporate law decision of BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly referenced the “good corporate citizen” when commenting on the best interests of the corporation. The Supreme Court’s reference to good corporate citizenship is often viewed as salient yet ambiguous. As the Supreme Court did not provide any substantive legal analysis of the term, legal scholars and practitioners can only speculate on its intended meaning. This article provides an empirical study on the historical development and usage of good corporate citizenship when referenced in judicial cases. The empirical findings show that Canadian courts have invoked the notion for decades and in a variety of contexts. The meaning of good corporate citizenship varies from context to context and does not necessarily dovetail with corporate social responsibility as commonly perceived. Good corporate citizenship as a legal concept carries some practical yet controversial consequences in the environmental sentencing context. Importantly, the oft-acclaimed corporate governance paradigm shift since BCE seems more symbolic than substantive in judicial practices. The Canadian experience also provides insights into the global emergence of explicit corporate social responsibility legislation and stakeholder-oriented corporate governance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".