Corporate social responsibility and codes of conduct : the noo-ethical perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for Codes of Conduct, which is a self-imposed ethical guidance for businesses, is a spin-off of the larger issue of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The latter gains significance \nwith every passing day in view of the challenges and opportunities \nposed by sustainable development and the three fundamental pillars \nit is based on: the generation of economic wealth, environmental \nunprovement and social responsibility. It was no other than Kofi \nAnnan who has voiced, back in 1999, the heavy burden of an ethical \nchoice faced by the global business community: \n'lVe have to choose between a global market driven by \ncalculation of short-term profit, and one which has a human \nface. Between a world which condemns a quarter of the \nhuman race to starvation and squalor, and one which offers \neveryone at least a chance o prosperity, in a healthy \nenvironment. Between a selfish free-for-all in which we \nignore the fate of the losers and a future in which the strong \nand successful accept their responsibilities, showing global \nvision and leadership.'
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".