MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205160182 · doi:10.1177/01492063211066057

More Bang for Their Buck: Why (and When) Family Firms Better Leverage Corporate Social Responsibility

2022· article· en· W4205160182 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Socioemotional selectivity theoryCorporate social responsibilityBusinessReputationStakeholderMarketingIndustrial organizationPublic relationsManagementEconomicsPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family firms take different strategic actions because of their desire to grow and preserve socioemotional wealth (SEW), but pursuing SEW also generates what we call SEW resources that deliver advantages in certain contexts. We develop and test this idea with respect to corporate social responsibility (CSR). We theorize that SEW resources such as reputation, strong stakeholder relationships, and long-term orientation help family firms better leverage symbolic CSR to enhance short-term firm performance and better leverage substantive CSR to enhance long-term firm performance. Regression analyses on a 20-year panel of S& P 500 firms provide supportive evidence. Findings indicate that family firms not only “do it differently” to preserve SEW; they sometimes “do it better” because of SEW.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.199 · 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