MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149487706 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v2n1p14

Corporate Governance Practices in Developing Countries: The Case for Kenya

2011· article· en· W2149487706 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin Mwanzia Mulili, Peter S. P. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of the Treasury
KeywordsCorporate governanceDeveloping countryStewardship (theology)Variety (cybernetics)PoliticsBusinessAgency (philosophy)Stewardship theoryPerspective (graphical)Corporate securityProcess (computing)AccountingPrincipal–agent problemEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologySocial scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the concept of corporate governance from a historical perspective. The paper explores how the agency theory and stewardship theory affect corporate governance practices. The focus of the paper is on public universities in Kenya. An extensive review of literature indicates that the ideals of good corporate governance have been adopted by developing countries since the 1980s. Developing countries differ from developed countries in a wide variety of ways. Therefore, there is need for developing countries to develop their own corporate governance models that consider the cultural, political and technological conditions found in each country. This paper explores the challenges encountered by developing countries in the process of adopting the corporate governance ideals. The authors have identified knowledge gaps in corporate governance that can form the basis for future research projects.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

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 studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations106
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207