Does gender diversity on corporate boards increase risk‐taking?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study the impact of board gender diversity on firm risk‐taking in a developing market. Our study is drawn from a sample of 30 Tunisian‐listed firms between 1997 and 2010. First, we found that women have a risk perception that leads to risk avoidance behaviour: the presence of women directors, even when there is one woman director, is positively associated with cash ratio. Second, we showed no significant relationship between board gender diversity and the propensity to take strategic or financial risk‐taking. Third, the presence of state officer/bureaucrats and/or politically connected women have a positive effect on cash holding and investment opportunities. Finally, we found that foreign investors do not invest in firms with gender‐diverse boards. We conclude with a discussion of contributions to scholarship and practice, and present avenues for future research. Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it