MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089695050 · doi:10.1108/joic.2003.3.4.31

Proxy voting: the rules and industry reaction

2002· article· en· W2089695050 on OpenAlex
Victoria P. Hulick

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Investment Compliance · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicState Capitalism and Financial Governance
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit investment trustBusinessFinanceCommissionShareholderProxy votingVotingInvestment managementAccountingInvestment (military)Proxy (statistics)PortfolioInvestment fundMutual fundInstitutional investorOpen-ended investment companyEconomicsCorporate governanceReturn on investmentGroup voting ticketLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent action, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted rules requiring SEC‐registered investment advisers (“investment advisers” or “advisers”) and registered management investment companies (“investment companies” or “mutual funds”) to adopt and disclose the policies and procedures they use to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities. In addition, investment advisers must disclose to clients how they can obtain information from the adviser on how their securities were voted and registered. Management investment companies must file with the Commission and make available to fund shareholders the specific proxy votes they cast.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.182 · 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