Audit Committee, Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from India
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the endorsement of Indian Companies Act (2013), the study examines the role of audit committee characteristics (independence and frequency of meetings) in addition with other components of corporate governance (duality, promoter shareholding, board composition, and board size) in improving firm performance. Fixed effect panel data regression was applied on 235 non-financial public limited companies listed in NSE 500. The time period considered was ten years (2004 to 2013). Return on Assets, Return on Equity, Tobin’s q and Market Capitalization were used as proxy of firm performance. Results reveal significant positive association of board size and CEO-Chairman dual role with firm performance. However, findings did not reveal any additional effect of audit committee independence and its meeting frequency on the financial performance of Indian firms. Regulators and policy makers may reexamine the significance of greater independence of board and audit committee in context of firm performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it