Interactions of Legislative Environment, Ownership Structures and Control Rights: A Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legislative environment prevailing in an economy can be an important determinant of how the firms are governed and the extent to which minority shareholders and other stakeholders are protected. The results of empirical literature on legislative environment as an external corporate governance mechanism indicate that legal and regulatory mechanisms are fundamental determinants in the evolution of corporate governance structures (LaPorta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer and Vishny (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002). In an ideal corporate governance model, one share is equal to one vote which means that cash flow right (ownership right) is equal to the control right (voting right). In reality, trade offs exist between ownership and control rights in every system no matter what the country’s corporate governance system is classified as: - an outsider (dispersed ownership structure) or insider (concentrated ownership structure) -.This paper aims to investigate the comprehensive literature on investors protection topic and taxonomy of different corporate governance systems of countries from various legal origins. In this context, this paper analyzes different mechanisms to concentrate or diffuse control rights with reference to Turkish Commercial Code and Capital Market Laws.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".