MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036192018 · doi:10.1142/s1084946705000094

CO-EVOLUTION OF BOARDS OF DIRECTORS IN MICROFINANCE ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF BANCOSOL AND LOS ANDES

2005· article· en· W2036192018 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 Developmental Entrepreneurship · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofinanceBusinessTask (project management)AccountingIndustrial organizationMarketingManagementEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mission and performance of an enterprise is the legal and strategic responsibility of the Board of Directors (BOD). For the BODs of microfinance institutions (MFIs) this task is even more challenging. This study investigates the connection between the composition and roles of BODs and organizational evolution. It builds on the experiences of BancoSol and Los Andes, two MFIs that pioneered microfinance in Bolivia. The findings support the notion that BODs evolve to fit the needs of organizations at different stages of industry and organizational evolution. While these results are not surprising, previous research has not shown the micro-dynamics involved in this co-evolution and thus their impact on board composition and roles.

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)0.000
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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