The Evolution of Corporate Governance: power redistribution brings boards to life
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
To understand the evolving perspectives and behaviour of directors and institutional investors, field research was conducted in 2004–2005 by way of a survey with corporate directors in four countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States; n = 658) and institutional investors in Canada (n = 34). Reported changes in directors' views and practices are substantial and consistent across countries, the defining characteristic of which is a fundamental shift in the positioning of the board toward becoming a strategic partner to management. The role of institutional investors also shifted in ways that are complementary to this new role of directors (e.g., toward increased monitoring). While most research has focused on agency concepts of the board as monitors of management, our research suggests that the board is evolving towards a more collaborative role with management, consistent with stewardship theory. Our findings also suggest that directors are seeking a balance between collaboration and their role as monitors of management, rejecting the notion of the board as primarily a monitoring body. An evolutionary model is offered to explain these changes and implications are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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