Les stratégies de triple reddition de compte des groupes bancaires : quels impacts sur les institutions financières coopératives ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La démarche de responsabilisation sociale des groupes bancaires capitalistes (GBCa) représente-t-elle une menace pour les avantages stratégiques distinctifs des groupes bancaires coopératifs (GBCo) ? L’analyse de contenu de la triple reddition du compte du plus grand GBCo au Canada nous a permis d’observer plusieurs éléments de similitude avec les pratiques des GBCa canadiennes, reflétant l’existence de mimétisme en termes substantifs. Le développement d’indicateurs de performance propres aux spécificités coopératives demeure encore moins significatif. Même si le modèle coopératif est privilégié pour pérenniser les pratiques responsables, il apparaît urgent pour les GBCo de mettre en valeur les avantages que leur confèrent leur structure de gouvernance collective et leur enracinement local à travers leur triple reddition de compte.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".