Preventing corporate failure: the Cadbury Committee’s corporate governance report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Describes the 19‐point code of corporate governance produced in 1991 by the Cadbury Committee, which was set up by the Stock Exchange, the Financial Reporting Council and the accounting profession; the aim was to improve the standard of corporate governance in Britain. Outlines its narrow terms of reference, which were to spread the boardroom practices of the best run companies to the rest, rather than to reform practice; the main issues covered were board responsibilities, directors’ qualifications, audit rotation, audit committee and auditor liability. Lists the Confederation of British Industry’s reasons for rejecting some of its proposals, proposals rejected by the Committee itself, general criticisms of the report, and Canadian reaction to it as expressed in the Toronto Stock Exchange committee report. Concludes that the Code, though voluntary and lacking enforcement power, is likely to impact on auditors, upon whom it relies as watchdogs to alert the public, especially as it criticises them for charging high consultancy fees.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".