MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168649294

Managers’ Role in Systematic Risk: A Rejoinder to Chatterjee, Lubatkin, and Schulze (1999)

2006· article· en· W2168649294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. Glenn Baigent, Howard Nemiroff, Patrizia Porrini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative International Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital asset pricing modelChatterjeeSchulze methodSystematic riskEconomicsFinancial economicsRisk managementBusinessActuarial scienceFinanceEpistemologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the role of the manager as implied by the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and address the three-decade discourse that has emerged in the Academy of Management Review concerning the responsibility of the manager. This discourse has embraced the conclusion that because CAPM only prices systematic risk and does not price unsystematic (firm-specific) risk, managers’ decisions and actions are not priced by CAPM. The management literature implies that because managers’ actions are not priced by CAPM, finance theory considers managers’ actions irrelevant. We demonstrate analytically that CAPM, and specifically systematic risk, does consider and price the role of the manager.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative International ManagementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207