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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".