CorText Manager around the world

@article{Lim2023,

title = {Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Artificial Intelligence in Finance: State-of-the-Art and Research Takeaways},

author = {Tristan Lim},

url = {https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr651155

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tristan_Lim5/publication/370228369_Environmental_Social_and_Governance_ESG_and_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Finance_State-of-the-Art_and_Research_Takeaways/links/64474633017bc07902d798dc/Environmental-Social-and-Governance-ESG-and-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Finance-State-of-the-Art-and-Research-Takeaways.pdf},

doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-2849051/v1},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-01},

urldate = {2023-04-01},

abstract = {The rapidly growing research landscape in finance, encompassing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics and associated Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, presents challenges for both new researchers and seasoned practitioners. This study aims to systematically map the research area, identify knowledge gaps, and examine potential research areas for researchers and practitioners. The investigation centers around three research questions: key research themes for ESG and AI in finance, research intensity and interest evolution, and the use and progression of AI techniques within these themes. Eight archetypical research domains were identified: (i) Trading and Investment, (ii) ESG Disclosure, Measurement and Governance, (iii) Firm Governance, (iv) Financial Markets and Instruments, (v) Risk Management, (vi) Forecasting and Valuation, (vii) Data, and (viii) Responsible Use of AI. Distinctive AI techniques were found to be employed across these archetypes. The study contributes to consolidating knowledge on the intersection of ESG, AI, and finance, offering an ontological inquiry and key takeaways for practitioners and researchers. Important insights include the popularity and crowding of the Trading and Investment domain, the growth potential of the Data archetype, and the high potential of Responsible Use of AI, despite its low publication count. By understanding the nuances of different research archetypes, researchers and practitioners can better navigate this complex landscape and contribute to a more sustainable and responsible financial sector.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Deng2020b,

title = {Mapping the interdisciplinarity in information behavior research: a quantitative study using diversity measure and co‐occurrence analysis},

author = {Shengli Deng and Sudi Xia},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03465-x},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-04-11},

abstract = {Information behavior research is an interdisciplinary field in essence due to the investiga- tion of interdisciplinary in previous work. To track the changes in interdisciplinarity of this field, more efforts should be put on basis of previous work. Based on publications searched from Web of Science from 2000 to 2018, we explored the interdisciplinarity of this field drawing on network analysis and diversity measure. Findings showed that although variety of disciplines in this field augmented significantly, the distribution of disciplines is unbal- anced and concentrated on some dominant disciplines such as computer science, engineer- ing, psychology, social science and medicine, etc. Relationships among disciplines have evolved over time and mainly focused on neighboring disciplines instead of distinct disci- plines. Computer science, engineering, psychology, health science and social science func- tion as intermediate disciplines connecting distinct disciplinary groups. Besides, the meas- urement using diversity measure shows that interdisciplinary degree of this field appears to decrease. This study contributes to the evolution and measurement of interdisciplinarity of information behavior research, which has implications for researchers and practitioners in this field.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Wezel2018b,

title = {Agroecology in Europe: Research, Education, Collective Action Networks, and Alternative Food Systems},

author = {Alexander Wezel and Julia Goette and Elisabeth Lagneaux and Gloria Passuello and Erica Reisman and Christophe Rodier and Grégoire Turpin},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041214},

doi = {10.3390/su10041214},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-04-17},

urldate = {2018-04-17},

journal = {Sustainability},

volume = {10},

number = {4},

pages = {1214},

abstract = {Agroecology is considered with different focus and weight in different parts of the world as a social and political movement, as science, and as practice. Despite its multitude of definitions, agroecology has begun in Europe to develop in different regional, national and continental networks of researchers, practitioners, advocates and movements. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive overview about these different developments and networks. Therefore, this paper attempts to document and provide a mapping of the development of European agroecology in its diverse forms. Through a literature review, interviews, active conference participation, and an extensive internet search we have collected information about the current state and development of agroecology in Europe. Agroecological research and higher education exist more in western and northern Europe, but farm schools and farmer-to-farmer training are also present in other regions. Today a large variety of topics are studied at research institutions. There is an increasing number of bottom-up agroecological initiatives and national or continental networks and movements. Important movements are around food sovereignty, access to land and seeds. Except for France, there are very few concrete policies for agroecology in Europe. Agroecology is increasingly linked to different fields of agri-food systems. This includes Community Supported Agriculture systems, but also agroecological territories, and some examples of labelling products. To amplify agroecology in Europe in the coming years, policy development will be crucial and proponents of agroecology must join forces and work hand-in-hand with the many stakeholders engaged in initiatives to develop more sustainable agriculture and food systems. View Full-Text},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}