MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1678155474 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v31i3.9219

Comparing Outgoing Female CEOs With Prior CEO Experience To Outgoing Female CEOs With No Prior CEO Experience

2015· article· en· W1678155474 on OpenAlexaff
Eahab Elsaid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyPosition (finance)BusinessDemographic economicsCompensation (psychology)Executive compensationAccountingPsychologySocial psychologyEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is difficult for females to climb the corporate ladder to the CEO position. Most of the previous research examines the obstacles that prevent females from reaching top management positions and ultimately the top position of CEO. In this study we examine this issue from the opposite side, i.e., we examine CEO successions were the outgoing CEO is female and the incoming CEO is male. We distinguish between outgoing female CEO successors who have prior CEO experience and those who do not have prior CEO experience. We find that prior CEO experience is positively related to the outgoing female CEO total compensation in the year preceding the succession, positively related to firm performance and negatively related to the probability of firm bankruptcy in the three years preceding the succession. Prior CEO experience is also positively related to the percentage of female and ethnic minority directors on the board in the two years preceding the succession.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR)Same topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207