MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049095173 · doi:10.1177/0007650305274850

Corporate Governance and Business Ethics in North America: The State of the Art

2005· article· en· W2049095173 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori Verstegen Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness & Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceShareholderLanguage changeCommissionStock exchangeLegislationStakeholderAccountingLegislatureEconomicsBusinessPolitical scienceLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All three corporate governance systems in North America are currently embroiled in fundamental transformations. Most of Mexico’s corporations are run by a small group of controlling shareholders and operate in an economic system rife with corruption. Recent political reforms and a desire to tap global equity markets have heightened their interest in improving corporate governance structures. United States corporations face a dispersed ownership base that has tended toward inattentiveness, allowing such infamous scandals as Enron to rock the global investing community. A backlash against the ensuing, restrictive Sarbanes-Oxley legislation is now underway. Like Mexico’s, Canada’s major corporations are led by a handful of controlling shareholders, but corruption is uncommon. New corporate governance guidelines are under debate, and the Ontario Securities Commission is wresting control from the Toronto Stock Exchange. Although these three corporate governance systems vary in terms of ownership dispersion, level of corruption, and legislative intervention, they currently share a common focus on fundamental reform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness & SocietySame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207