The Convergence of Disclosure and Governance Practices in the World’s Largest Firms*
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
Many studies discuss convergence of cross‐border governance and governance‐related disclosure practices, but provide little empirical evidence to support their arguments and analysis. Our study examines the governance and disclosure practices of the world’s largest transnational firms. Using a unique dataset of 75 large firms in two time periods, 1995 and 2002, we examine both the governance practices, and disclosures regarding those governance practices, across Anglo‐Saxon and non‐Anglo‐Saxon firms. Results indicate that non‐Anglo‐Saxon firms have developed their governance practices towards promoting an independent mechanism of control, namely a mechanism that is more similar to an Anglo‐Saxon governance regime. In regard to governance‐related disclosure practices, results indicate that for both Anglo‐Saxon and non‐Anglo‐Saxon groups, disclosure practices have been evolving and converging towards more disclosures regarding governance matters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it