MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corporate Purpose and Strategy: A Microfoundational Perspective

2023· article· en· W4385219018 on OpenAlexaff
Libby Weber, Sarah Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal and Cross-Cultural Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)BusinessProcess managementComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This symposium aims to showcase novel insights of the growing body of research that examines corporate purpose through a microfoundational, stakeholder-driven lens. We selected papers that explore the role of a shared corporate purpose that goes beyond short-term profit generation on stakeholder resource provision. The first paper outlines the theoretical foundations of the relationship between a corporate purpose, stakeholder outcomes and firm performance, and the rest of the papers provide empirical examinations of how employee resource provision is impacted by what employees know about the purpose of their organization. The Value of Organizational Purpose Author: Witold Jerzy Henisz; U. of Pennsylvania Corporate Social Responsiveness and Employee Outcomes: The “All-Or-Nothing” Conundrum Author: Anna Szerb; INSEAD Social Responsibility Orientation and Employer Advantages Across the Employee Lifecycle Author: J. Daniel Kim; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Author: Matthew Lee; Harvard Kennedy School Theory and Experimental Evidence of Stakeholder Responses to CEO Political Activism Author: Tommaso Bondi; Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Author: Vanessa Burbano; Columbia Business School Author: Fabrizio Dell'Acqua; Harvard Business School

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.039
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicGlobal and Cross-Cultural ManagementFrench-language works237,207