MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385074701 · doi:10.36615/jcsa.v42i1.2531

Sappi’s stakeholder engagement approach involves listening to multiple voices for social impact

2023· article· en· W4385074701 on OpenAlexaff
A. Oberholzer, Mpho Lethoko, Mari Lee, Dalien René Benecke, Thabisile Phumo

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunicare Journal for Communication Studies in Africa · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsStillwater (Canada)COM DEV International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingStakeholder engagementStakeholderProsperityMultinational corporationPublic relationsContext (archaeology)Active listeningCorporate social responsibilityCustomer engagementBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceSocial mediaSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Putting theory into practice remains a challenge in the diverse South African context. The authors of this case study seek to present a communication programme that have been implemented by African communication professionals and which illustrate the practical application of business and social impact results to communication theory. Sappi is an Africa-headquartered multinational company with a global footprint which uses its stakeholder approach as part of its business strategy. Sappi is a leading global provider of everyday materials made from wood-fibrebased renewable resources. The company works with its partners to build a thriving world by acting boldly to support the planet, people and prosperity (Sappi, 2023). This article critically evaluates how Sappi uses stakeholder engagement to achieve this purpose statement.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.039
Scholarly communication0.0130.017
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.607
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.077 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunicare Journal for Communication Studies in AfricaSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207