MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197329194 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.160403

Investigating the Effectiveness of the Maritime Regulatory Regime to Address a Socially Responsible Shipping Industry: A Content Analysis Study

2021· article· en· W3197329194 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ioannis Fasoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Offshore Engineering Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaritime industryBusinessInternational shippingEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsIndustrial organizationEnvironmental resource managementInternational tradeEconomicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in 2015, has transformed the approach of public and private entities to address environmental, social and economic challenges. As result, new governance and management insights are sought, among them corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is increasingly seen as a self-regulating means to help organizations meet multifaceted challenges. With regard to shipping, global developments have called for a blueprint to facilitate industry's transition to a more sustainable pathway. However, CSR applicability in the maritime business is relatively recent and has been mainly viewed as a voluntary and beyond regulatory compliance notion. Among these shifts, this study explores the effectiveness and extent to which the maritime regulatory regime has addressed CSR topics. A case study strategy and content analysis method is employed. In turn, ISO 26000 social responsibility standard employed as the guiding paradigm to identify applicability of CSR norms within selected maritime legislation. Findings revealed a satisfactory coverage by the maritime regime of CSR issues falling under the scope of human rights, labor, the environment and organizational governance subjects. Though, it seemed to lag behind in subjects situated within the array of fair operating practices, consumer treatment and community involvement.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicMarine and Offshore Engineering StudiesFrench-language works237,207