Corporate Governance Rules in Six Stock Exchanges: A Comparative Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to compare the corporate governance rules around the world and to ascertain which Stock Exchange SE is more adherent to our proposed corporate governance framework. The SE researched were Tokyo TSE, New York NYSE, Frankfurt Stock Exchange, Brazil BM&FBovespa, London Stock Exchange and Toronto TSX. Several governance models or frameworks extracted from the literature were analyzed, however the integration across these studies showed extremely difficult. This lead us to build our own “proxy” framework composed of 15 rules. TSX has the lowest corporate governance standard compared to other five SE because its document does not provide description in 12 rules out of 15, while London has the highest corporate governance standard with detailed description in 11 rules. As more and more companies do business around the world with their counterparts and governments, it becomes increasingly important to understand the similarities and differences between the corporate governance rules and practices in some Stock Exchange around the world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it