MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036364591 · doi:10.1177/0894486510396870

The Impact of Family Involvement on the R&D Intensity of Publicly Traded Firms

2011· article· en· W2036364591 on OpenAlex
Fernando Muñoz‐Bullón, María J. Sánchez‐Bueno

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Business Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndowmentBusinessResource (disambiguation)R&D intensityAgency (philosophy)Intensity (physics)Panel dataControl (management)Demographic economicsEconomicsEconometricsManagementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of family involvement in ownership and control on firms’ R&D intensity, relying on panel data on publicly held firms in Canada over the 2004 to 2009 time period. The literature on the link between family firms and R&D is unclear: although some characteristics may promote R&D intensity in family firms, others factors may have a negative effect. Thus, the authors propose a theoretical framework whereby differences in R&D intensity between family and nonfamily firms are explained based on key conditions, including time horizon, agency costs, resource endowment, or risk-taking behavior. The findings of this study show that publicly traded family firms in Canada record lower R&D intensity compared with nonfamily firms and, therefore, support one side of the previous literature over the other.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.146 · 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