Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Amid ongoing criticism that corporate boards do not receive adequate information to help them fulfill their current and emerging roles, the purpose of this paper is to focus on the type of information directors receive. Specifically, to examine whether greater board independence and greater board expertise were associated with receiving more information, in five specific categories. Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses about the relationships between the composition of corporate boards and the various types of information they receive were tested by means of a survey of 161 Canadian companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Findings The authors findings indicate a strong association between board expertise and each type of information received and suggest a weaker relationship between board independence and information received. Specifically, the results demonstrate that more independent boards do not receive larger amounts of information that is more forward‐looking in nature. Research limitations/implications These findings contribute to the literature on governance by providing relevant empirical evidence, based on primary data on board information issues. However, these results must be interpreted within the context of the use of various perceptual measures. Practical implications Now that the composition of corporate boards has changed considerably, the findings of this study underline the need to re‐examine the supporting information processes. Hence, this study should help provide guidance to organizations examining the content of their current information strategy. Originality/value An important contribution of this study is its detailed characterization of the information provided to corporate boards, including financial and non‐financial information and reflecting the five traditional stages of the strategic management process.
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".