MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183590638 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v12n4p25

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Value Creation: Empirical Study in Palestine

2021· article· en· W3183590638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Randa Sleibi, Naser Abdelkarim

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessValue (mathematics)ProactivityCorporate social responsibilityCentralityVoluntarism (philosophy)Order (exchange)Investment (military)Empirical researchVisibilityAccountingMarketingIndustrial organizationPublic relationsEconomicsFinanceManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study empirically evaluates the potential relation between strategic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dimensions and strategic value creation and establishes an order of importance of these dimensions according to Palestinian public shareholding corporates listed on Palestine Exchange. This is a quantitative research that analyzes corporates’ responses on a descriptive and correlational questionnaire designed specifically for the research purpose.Cross-sectional analysis revealed important correlations between the strategic value and CSR dimensions across various sectors, such as a strong positive correlation with Proactivity in the Banking sector, a moderate negative correlation with Voluntarism in the Industrial sector, a strong positive correlation with Visibility in the Investment and Services sectors and no correlation in the Insurance sector. The order of preference with respect to dimensions also varied among sectors: the most important dimensions for the Banking, Industrial, Investment, Services and Insurance sectors were Visibility, Centrality, Voluntarism, Centrality and Proactivity; Respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207