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   708篇
  免费   34篇
  国内免费   10篇
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
  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.
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.
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