The Effect of Board's Quality on Performance: a study of Canadian firms
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
We investigate the impact of board's quality as defined by a Score published in a Canadian National Newspaper on the performance of the firm. Based on the current literature, we ranked the boards of 219 Canadian firms in terms of four board characteristics: composition of the board, compensation of board members, shareholder rights, and disclosure. Then, we defined firm performance by using traditional accounting‐based measures such as ROI, ROE, EPS, and Market‐to‐book ratio and value creation‐based measures such as EVA(R) and MVA. To test the effects of board's quality on firm performance, we adopted different models of univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. Our results show no significant relationships between corporate governance and performance when using traditional performance measures, such as ROI, ROE, EPS and Market‐to‐book. However, they reveal significant links between board's quality and performance when the latter is captured by value performance measures, such as market value added and economic value added.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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