MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388001871 · doi:10.1111/acfi.13187

Corporate sexual orientation equality and carbon emission

2023· article· en· W4388001871 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of NewfoundlandDalhousie University
KeywordsGreenhouse gasSustainabilityAgency (philosophy)BusinessCapital (architecture)Corporate social responsibilitySexual orientationFace (sociological concept)Public relationsSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Does a firm's tolerance and nurturing of its employees with different sexual orientations influence its long‐term sustainability? Based on corporate sexual orientation equality (CSOE), we find that firms with higher CSOE ratings emit less greenhouse gases (GHGs) that thereby ensure long‐term sustainability. In addition, we report that the CSOE–GHG relationship is stronger for firms with less agency issues (e.g., less powerful CEOs and more monitoring). Finally, we find that carbon emitting firms (CEFs) that invest in more CSOE initiatives do not do it for external rewards (e.g., they suffer from lower valuations and face higher costs of raising capital).

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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