全文获取类型
收费全文 | 708篇 |
免费 | 34篇 |
国内免费 | 10篇 |
专业分类
财政金融 | 88篇 |
工业经济 | 15篇 |
计划管理 | 260篇 |
经济学 | 99篇 |
综合类 | 90篇 |
运输经济 | 4篇 |
旅游经济 | 7篇 |
贸易经济 | 109篇 |
农业经济 | 31篇 |
经济概况 | 49篇 |
出版年
2024年 | 3篇 |
2023年 | 9篇 |
2022年 | 5篇 |
2021年 | 10篇 |
2020年 | 18篇 |
2019年 | 18篇 |
2018年 | 16篇 |
2017年 | 21篇 |
2016年 | 18篇 |
2015年 | 17篇 |
2014年 | 56篇 |
2013年 | 66篇 |
2012年 | 66篇 |
2011年 | 80篇 |
2010年 | 58篇 |
2009年 | 35篇 |
2008年 | 43篇 |
2007年 | 38篇 |
2006年 | 32篇 |
2005年 | 40篇 |
2004年 | 36篇 |
2003年 | 18篇 |
2002年 | 12篇 |
2001年 | 15篇 |
2000年 | 7篇 |
1999年 | 5篇 |
1998年 | 4篇 |
1997年 | 1篇 |
1996年 | 1篇 |
1993年 | 2篇 |
1989年 | 1篇 |
1984年 | 1篇 |
排序方式: 共有752条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
751.
Laura Illia Elanor Colleoni Stelios Zyglidopoulos 《Business ethics (Oxford, England)》2023,32(1):201-210
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
752.
David J. Cooper Jeff Everett Darlene Himick Daniela Senkl 《Accounting Perspectives》2023,22(2):215-234
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