Gestion du résultat ou optimisation fiscale?Évaluation des octrois d'options d'achat d'actions selon le contexte de gouvernance actionnariale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le présent article s'intéresse à la détermination de l'ampleur des octrois d'options d'achat d'actions du point de vue de la gouvernance. Il se focalise sur les 100 plus grandes sociétés canadiennes durant la période 1998–2001 et montre que la structure de leur actionnariat influence les choix de rémunération des dirigeants (options par opposition à la rémunération en espèces). Plus spécifiquement, les sociétés à actionnariat concentré octroient des options en vue d'optimiser l'utilisation de leurs déductions fiscales mais également dans le but d'atteindre des résultats cibles. Abstract Within a governance perspective, this study shows that Canadian firms' ownership influences executive compensation strategy (stock options versus cash compensation) during the 1998–2001 period. More specifically, tax optimization seems to drive executive stock option grants among firms with concentrated ownership. Earnings management considerations are also found to be important in determining the extent of stock option grants.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".