The Different Effects of Social Capital on Corporate Performance in China: An Empesirical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the effect of social capital on corporate performance. The empirical data is composed of 101 listing companies in the People's Republic of China. We found that corporate social capital has significant effects on its market performance. However, there is no evidence shows that social capital has significant impacts on corporate financial performance. We also found that the impact of social capital on market performance of non-SOEs is stronger than that of SOEs. Key words: Social capital, corporate performance, listing company, China. Resume: Cet essai examine les effets du capital social sur la performance de l’entreprise. Les donnees empiriques sont composees de 101 entreprises de la Republique Populaire de Chine. Nous trouvons que le capital social collectif exerce des effets signifiants sur leur performance de marche. Cependant, il n’y a pas d’evidence qui montre que le capital social produit des effets signifiants sur la performance financiere de l’entreprise. Nous trouvons aussi que l’influence du capital social sur la performance de marche des entreprises privees s’avere plus forte que sur les entreprises d’Etat. Mots-Cles: capital social, performance de l’entreprise, entreprises, Chine
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".