Divulgation d’informations sociétales : une étude comparative longitudinale entre la France et le Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à comparer les informations sociétales (sociales, environnementales et de gouvernance) publiées par les entreprises françaises et canadiennes. Pour assurer cette comparaison, une étude quantitative longitudinale est menée en partant du cadre théorique de l’analyse institutionnelle. À partir d’une analyse comparative et un échantillon composé de 79 entreprises françaises et de 224 entreprises canadiennes (2,379 observations), nous avons constaté que (1) le niveau de divulgation d’informations sociétales (désormais DIS) ont constamment évolué en France et au Canada pendant la période d’étude (2004 - 2014) ainsi ils varient largement lorsqu’on compare les entreprises françaises et canadiennes, ceci sur tous les secteurs et sous les trois aspects : environnemental, social et de gouvernance, (2) le niveau global de DIS est plus élevé en France qu’au Canada, cependant (3) en étudiant séparément chaque dimension, les résultats ont montré que le niveau de DIS est plus élevé en France qu’au Canada concernant les dimensions environnementale et sociale, alors qu’en termes de gouvernance, la situation est opposée.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".