首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   407篇
  免费   21篇
  国内免费   4篇
财政金融   81篇
工业经济   9篇
计划管理   133篇
经济学   71篇
综合类   64篇
运输经济   3篇
旅游经济   8篇
贸易经济   34篇
农业经济   14篇
经济概况   15篇
  2024年   4篇
  2023年   7篇
  2022年   3篇
  2021年   8篇
  2020年   12篇
  2019年   13篇
  2018年   10篇
  2017年   18篇
  2016年   13篇
  2015年   10篇
  2014年   37篇
  2013年   46篇
  2012年   39篇
  2011年   40篇
  2010年   29篇
  2009年   16篇
  2008年   16篇
  2007年   15篇
  2006年   17篇
  2005年   20篇
  2004年   18篇
  2003年   9篇
  2002年   8篇
  2001年   10篇
  2000年   4篇
  1999年   4篇
  1998年   3篇
  1996年   1篇
  1989年   1篇
  1984年   1篇
排序方式: 共有432条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
431.
We are at a turning point in the debate on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) because we are witnessing the rise of general-purpose AI text agents such as GPT-3 that can generate large-scale highly refined content that appears to have been written by a human. Yet, a discussion on the ethical issues related to the blurring of the roles between humans and machines in the production of content in the business arena is lacking. In this conceptual paper, drawing on agenda setting theory and stakeholder theory, we challenge the current debate on the ethics of AI and aim to stimulate studies that develop research around three new challenges of AI text agents: automated mass manipulation and disinformation (i.e., fake agenda problem), massive low-quality content production (i.e., lowest denominator problem) and the creation of a growing buffer in the communication between stakeholders (i.e., the mediation problem).  相似文献   
432.
This paper expands on a letter recently submitted by a group of Canadian business academics to the Independent Review Committee on Standard Setting in Canada (IRCSSC) in response to the committee's proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board. We highlight sections of the IRCSSC's Consultation Paper that we find problematic and draw on accounting and other research to explain why it fails to live up to its potential. Chief among the problems we identify is that the IRCSSC appears to be wedded to the same narrow, investor-based focus promoted by the International Sustainability Standard Board. We also draw attention to the rushed nature of the process, its exclusion of lay experts, the IRCSSC's ambiguous use of the term public interest, and its inattention to alternative understandings of value and the environment (including the people within it). Finally, we problematize the IRCSSC's sidestepping of the issues of power, culture, and conflict; its neglect of monitoring and enforcement; and its surprising disregard of the Global Reporting Initiative. Along with a number of suggestions for improving the process and its outcome, this paper also contributes to ongoing debates on standard setting and the question of whether accounting is currently equipped to provide the necessary tools for sustainability reporting.  相似文献   
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号