The Strange Role of Independent Directors in a Two-Tier Board Structure in China’s Listed Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate laws around the world, when they were first enacted, were very similar, 1 largely because of the inherent nature of commerce and capitalism that originated in Western Europe and later spread to North America. The transplantation of corporate law from the leading countries of origin (Holland, then England, France, Germany, the United States, and other civil and common law countries) to other countries led to tremendous similarities in the basic legal framework of corporations across the globe. However, as the corporate world grew, divergence began to emerge between the origin countries as they sought to provide legal and institutional solutions to problems occurring in national settings with sometimes very different legal and sociocultural traditions. As a result, in terms of corporate law, the origin countries differ “in how they responded to the challenges of the rapid growth of the enterprise and financial sectors and to the booms and busts of financial markets that accompanied it.” 2 In spite of the differences, the corporate laws in the origin countries have been, in various degrees, successful. Time is to be credited for this: the development of capitalism and the credit culture in Western Europe and North America has lasted for over two centuries, a timespan wide enough for those countries to adjust and rationalize their regulatory and market institutions of corporations through a process of trial and error. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".