MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Succession and Nonsuccession Concerns of Family Firms and Agency Relationship with Nonfamily Managers

2003· article· en· W2002603455 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Business Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Ecological successionBusinessFamily businessFocus (optics)Empirical researchMarketingPublic relationsManagementSociologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article consists of two parts. The first part reports findings from a survey of the issues facing top executives in 272 Canadian family firms. Results show that succession is their No. 1 concern, thus supporting the predominant focus of family business researchers on succession issues. Results also show that concern about relationships with nonfamily managers is a close second in importance. The second part of the article uses Agency Theory to explain why relationships with nonfamily managers are so important. Empirical results show that both the extent and the criticality of a firm's dependence on nonfamily managers are statistically significant determinants of the importance. This study implies that relationships with nonfamily managers is a neglected research topic and points to a new direction for research in family business management.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.226 · 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