The Impact of Canadian Shareholder Activism : A Study of Governance Proposals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ces dernières années, le nombre de projets de résolution soumis aux assemblées générales annuelles s'est accru dans plusieurs pays.L'objectif de cette étude consiste à examiner le pourcentage de projets de résolution qui ont été mis en place suite à leur présentation aux assemblées générales annuelles.Les résultats tendent à indiquer que le taux de mis en place après une période de deux ans, bien que faible, varie selon la nature du projet de résolution et le type d'actionnaires impliqués.Mots-clés : Activisme actionarial, projets de résolution d'actionnaires, assemblée générale annuelle, gouvernance corporative, théorie d'agence.El número de proposiciones sometidas por los accionistas a la consideración de las asambleas generales anuales ha aumentado en varios países, durante los últimos años.El objetivo de este estudio es examinar, en el contexto canadiense, el porcentaje de proposiciones que fueron implementadas después de haber sido presentadas en las asambleas generales anuales de accionistas.Les resultados sugieren que el porcentaje de implementación es bajo, aunque varía según la naturaleza del proyecto de la proposición y del tipo de accionistas involucrados en su elaboración.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".