Corporate social responsibility and the readability of listed firms’ compensation discussion and analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche examine la relation entre la responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE) et la complexité des informations qu’elles fournissent relativement la rémunération de leurs dirigeants. En nous basant sur les prédictions de la théorie des parties prenantes, nous nous attendons à ce que les entreprises soucieuses de la RSE adhèrent à des normes éthiques élevées et communiquent des informations plus transparentes et faciles à lire sur la rémunération des dirigeants. Basés sur un échantillon de 196 sociétés inscrites à la Bourse de Toronto, nos résultats montrent une association positive entre la mise en œuvre de pratiques de RSE et la lisibilité des informations textuelles présentées dans le rapport d’analyse et discussion de la rémunération. Parmi les trois composantes du score total de la RSE, le score de gouvernance présente une relation négative avec la complexité linguistique des rapports de rémunération, ce qui suggère que les entreprises mieux gouvernées communiquent des informations plus lisibles sur leurs pratiques en matière de rémunération des dirigeants.
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 | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".