MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261242864

The Adulteration of Fiduciary Doctrine in Corporate Law

2006· article· en· W2261242864 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpportunismFiduciaryDoctrineJurisprudenceCorporate lawContext (archaeology)LawAccountabilityLaw and economicsPolitical scienceDuty of loyaltyCorporate governanceBusinessSociologyEconomicsManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conventional function of accountability is to control opportunism in limited access arrangements. One area of the law, however, has separated itself from the general jurisprudence through an internal expansion to matters beyond the mischief of opportunism. In the corporate context, fiduciary responsibility ostensibly now regulates the general quality or merits of the actions of directors. That move beyond the conventional boundary was not a conscious development. It was an unschooled semantic progression into unjustified conceptual novelty. Elsewhere I have described the confusion in the modern jurisprudence. Here I explain how a large part of that confusion arose through the uninformed acceptance over time of imprecise judicial language. At no point in the past two centuries did the judges appear to appreciate how their use or acceptance of language had the effect of dissolving the conventional boundary. They did not intend to change the law. They believed on each occasion that they were only stating established principle. The law has thus been fundamentally altered inadvertently - and the control of director opportunism has been compromised immeasurably.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.059
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207