MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404376050 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17110509

The Role of Digital Technologies in Corporate Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review and Future Research Agenda

2024· review· en· W4404376050 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityCorporate sustainabilityPolitical scienceKnowledge managementBusinessEngineering ethicsRegional scienceEnvironmental resource managementData scienceSociologyEngineeringComputer sciencePublic relationsCorporate social responsibilityEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze trends, pioneers, emerging issues, and potential future research in the field of digital technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, big data, fintech, and digital transformation for corporate sustainability. Using VOSviewer, R-studio, and BiblioMagika, this bibliometric review analyses 1251 articles published between 1995 and 2024 from the Scopus database. It highlights gaps in the knowledge and possible areas for further research in digital technologies and sustainability. Based on the findings, it can be determined that recent scholarly work has focused on topics such as digitalisation and sustainability, AI and sustainable development, blockchain and environmental technology, financial technology and green innovation, and energy policy and carbon emissions. This study is useful in helping emerging scholars identify and understand current trends in digital technologies and sustainability.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0240.064
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.280 · 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