MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141716730 · doi:10.1177/0894486514538449

Does Family Involvement Make Firms Donate More? Empirical Evidence From Chinese Private Firms

2014· article· en· W2141716730 on OpenAlex
Junsheng Dou, Zhongyuan Zhang, Emma Su

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Business Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsVancouver Enterprise Forum
FundersZhejiang UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryBusinessStakeholderFamily businessChinese familyAffect (linguistics)Control (management)Perspective (graphical)MarketingPublic relationsEconomicsPsychologyManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article follows recent development on the socioemotional wealth perspective to examine the impact of family involvement on corporate charitable donations. Based on data collected from 2,821 Chinese private firms, we find that (a) family ownership and the duration of family control positively affect charitable donations and (b) when the next generation is unwilling to take over the business, the positive relationship between family ownership and charitable donations becomes weaker. These findings show that firms’ proactive stakeholder engagement is susceptible to family involvement. They also highlight the possible existence of the “dark” effect of certain socioemotional wealth dimensions on firms’ proactive stakeholder engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.243 · 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