Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One overarching theme of the book is that the for-profit corporation is a morally responsible person, with a critically important set of duties within democratic society. This persons-based theory of the firm holds that the fundamental purpose of the firm is to create products and services which benefit human persons and stands in contrast to the dominant view which holds that the firm is an amoral actor focussed exclusively on maximizing profits. The theory also holds that corporations have a set of moral rights and duties which are shaped through the democratic process. This connects with the second theme, which holds that democratic societies have a wide prerogative to structure the firm as part of an overall just arrangement of society. This position stands in contrast to views which see firms as governed by the market logic of competition and efficiency. A third theme diagnoses the current relationship between corporations and the rest of democratic society as dysfunctional and proposes ways that the relationship can be transformed into one based on mutual respect. Fourth, the book explores how the failure of corporations to recognize their distinctly democratic duties presents a threat to liberal democratic institutions and values and examines how corporations should respond when they are implicated in attacks on the liberal democratic order.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".