MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184277174

Mesure d'Impact et Label ISR: Analyse et Recommendations (Impact Measurement and SRI Label: Analysis and Recommendations)

2018· article· fr· W3184277174 on OpenAlexaff
Diane‐Laure Arjaliès, Pierre Chollet, Patricia Crifo, Nicolas Mottis

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePrivate labelArtLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French abstract: Ce rapport presente les travaux du Groupe de Travail Impact lance lors de la reunion du Comite du Label ISR du 1e decembre 2017, coordonnee par Nicolas Mottis pour le Comite Scientifique du Label ISR et qui a reuni une trentaine d’acteurs de la place financiere parisienne sur les questions de mesure d’impact des fonds labelises. Ce groupe a fonctionne de decembre 2017 a juin 2018 avec l’objectif de faire des propositions concretes au Comite du Label ISR, notamment sur l’evolution du referentiel utilise comme base de labellisation des fonds. Il a realise de nombreuses auditions d’acteurs francais et internationaux, une revue de litterature large sur la question de l’impact, une enquete ouverte par questionnaire et un appel a propositions. Cela a conduit a la formulation de 4 propositions visant a ameliorer la prise en compte des questions d’impact par le label. Ces propositions seront presentees au Comite du Label a l’automne 2018. English abstract: This report presents the work of the Impact Working Group launched at the meeting of the SRI Label Committee on December 1, 2017, coordinated by Nicolas Mottis for the Scientific Committee of the SRI Label and which brought together around thirty players from the Parisian financial center on questions of measuring the impact of labeled funds. This group operated from December 2017 to June 2018 with the objective of making concrete proposals to the SRI Label Committee, in particular on the evolution of the benchmark used as the basis for labeling funds. He has carried out numerous hearings with French and international actors, a broad literature review on the issue of impact, an open survey by questionnaire and a call for proposals. This led to the formulation of 4 proposals aimed at improving the taking into account of impact issues by the label. These proposals will be presented to the Label Committee in the fall of 2018.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0160.019
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0190.016
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.019

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207