MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Boards of Directors, Market Discipline and Firm Performance

2005· article· en· W1931831657 on OpenAlex
Richard Bozec

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Finance &amp Accounting · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexCorporate governanceCompetition (biology)BusinessIndustrial organizationProduct marketMarket competitionAffect (linguistics)ProductivityProduct (mathematics)Empirical evidenceAccountingEconomicsMicroeconomicsIncentiveMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The board of directors is generally seen as an important internal governance structure. However, the empirical evidence on the board‐performance relationship is not conclusive. On the other hand, a growing literature suggests that different control mechanisms, either internal or external to the firm, can interact with each other and affect performance. One such important factor is product market competition. The objective of the study is to investigate further the board‐performance relationship taking into consideration the potential effect of market competition. More precisely, the study analyzes the combined effect of boards of directors’ characteristics, and market discipline on firm performance. Overall, the results suggest that competition has a positive and significant impact on firm profitability and productivity. Moreover, this determinant factor creates the conditions for which the board‐performance relationship is supported. In other words, for boards to be effective, firms should be exposed to a competitive environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.196 · 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