Concentration de propriété et investissements en R&D : une perspective d'agence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(VF)Cette revue de littérature vise à comprendre la relation entre les structures de propriété et les décisions d’investissement en R&D. En analysant la littérature scientifique qui s’est intéressée à cette problématique, nous constatons que la relation entre les structures de propriété et la R&D diffère selon le contexte économique étudié. Ces différences observées d’une économie à l’autre s’expliquent par la prédominance de différents types de conflits d’agence spécifiques à chacune d’elles. Nous discutons des limites de la littérature existante en proposant des pistes de recherches intéressantes pour enrichir la littérature étudiant la relation entre la concentration de propriété et les investissements en R&D.(VA)This literature review seeks to understand the relationship between corporate ownership structures and R&D investments. When examining the findings gathered from different economies throughout different parts of the world, we observe important differrences in the effect of ownership structures on R&D investments from one economic context to another. These differences are based on specific differences in the agency conflicts that are predominant in the different economic settings. We underline and discuss some of the limitations in the present literature and provide several suggestions for future research to improve our understand-ding of the relationship between ownership concentration and R&D investments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".