Intellectual capital myths: Comments on literature review
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
This article contributes to the growing body of literature exploring the important role that information transparency plays in strengthening the national corporate governance regime. We review the 2007 amendments to the Canadian reporting legislation with the particular emphasis on sections pertaining to executive compensation and boards of directors. Taking into consideration the specificities of the „comply-or-explain‟ system in Canada, we seek to uncover the extent to which publicly-listed firms comply with these newly amended standards of corporate governance reporting. Based on a comparison of 403 proxy circulars issued in the post-amendment period, we identified important cross-firm variations in the type and format of disclosed information on executive compensation and corporate boards of directors. In order to address the problems that inter-organizational disclosure discrepancies generate for governance researchers and analysts, we provide several recommendations on how Canadian publicly-traded companies can improve their reporting practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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