Presentación de las dos instrucciones de la Sagrada Congregación para la doctrina de la fe acerca de la teología de la liberación

Ningun

BASES CONCEPTUALES PARA EL ESTUDIO DE LA RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL DE LA EMPRESA

This paper is intended to show the convergence between argumentations regarding social accountability of individuals and institutions, based on ethical and philosophical grounds on one hand, and on the empirical sciences, on the other, despite the fact that they develop in different scenarios. The essence of the discussion aims at persuading that, more important than the motivation that social players may have to assume said accountability—which can be justified in different and even contradictory ways—is their need to adjust to varied cultural contexts and, in today’s functionally differentiated society, to diverse subsystems that operate in and keep an eye on the entrepreneurial environment. Thus, although the enterprises’ main social responsibility lies in their specific lines of business, the complexity of the means where they operate compels them to take on duties outside their own areas. Whether such context can help economic agents develop ethical virtues is beyond the scope of this work, but both the more and the less virtuous are equally obliged to pay attention to how they are viewed within their environment and then adjust their conducts accordingly. After explaining the author’s observation prism (1), the paper analyzes ethical (2) and empirical arguments (3) regarding accountability, to later apply them to the specific context of the functionally differentiated society (4) and of enterprises in it (5).Social responsibility, Firm, Business, Ethics

An international validation of the AO spine subaxial injury classification system

Purpose To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions. Methods A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (? = 0-0.20), fair (? = 0.21-0.40), moderate (? = 0.41-0.60), substantial (? = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (? = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification. Results A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (? = 0.87), while fracture subtype (? = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (? = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (? = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (? = 0.76). Conclusion The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype