MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122050599 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v6n6p247

Corporate Governance and Involuntary Delisting: Empirical Evidence from China

2014· article· en· W2122050599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Nasir Malik, Xinping Xia, Rizwan Shabbir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceShareholderBusinessAccountingInsiderChinaSample (material)Logistic regressionAuditEvent studyIndependence (probability theory)Event (particle physics)FinancePolitical scienceLawStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate the change in corporate governance structure of a firm in China as it approaches involuntary delisting. To this end, we try to identify corporate governance characteristics that have the most significant impact on probability of involuntary delisting at three years prior to the event, two years prior to the event, and one year prior to the event. The corporate governance characteristics examined in this study are board characteristics (board activity, board size, board independence, and presence of audit committee) and ownership characteristics (shareholder activism, ownership concentration, and insider ownership). We use logistic regression analysis on a match pair sample of surviving and delisting firms and evaluate how the governance characteristics vary over time for the two sets of firms. Our results confirm a widening gap between governance structures of delisting and surviving firms as the former approach delisting event.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207