MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Profit Sharing on the Performance of Financial Services Firms*

2005· article· en· W1979558642 on OpenAlex

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 Management Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCooperative Studies and Economics
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexExpectancy theoryBusinessPrincipal–agent problemProfit (economics)MacroEarly adopterMarketingIndustrial organizationProfit sharingFinanceEconomicsCorporate governanceMicroeconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

abstract Relying on macro theories (agency and organizational control) as well as micro theories (goal setting and expectancy), this study investigates the impact of profit‐sharing plan (PSP) adoption on the value creation process of financial services firms. The study relies on a comprehensive methodological approach that is both quantitative, with a dual cross‐sectional/longitudinal (pre‐post) design that compares PSP adopters with a control group of PSP non‐adopter firms, and qualitative through interviews with some adopting firms’ managing directors. Results show that firms adopting a PSP enhance their profitability in comparison to both their own prior performance and to firms that are not adopting a PSP. Results also show that the adoption of a PSP: (a) positively influences only profit drivers that are under employee control; and (b) is more likely to have a long term, positive impact on external profit drivers than on internal profit drivers. Qualitative data from field interviews corroborate and enrich these quantitative findings.

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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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