Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key decision for the design of principal–agent agreements is how much control or authority the buyer (or principal) should be allowed to exercise in relation to the seller (or agent). Historically, agency theory has viewed exchange agreements as ranging from those in which the buyer has very high authority over the seller (formal authority) to those in which the buyer and seller are relatively independent so there is little or no authority relation (market exchange). However, some principal–agent agreements reverse the authority relationship usually assumed in agency theory by allowing the seller to exercise authority over the buyer. The authors study this unexplored type of agency agreement and refer to it as “authority relinquishment.” Using data collected from interviews with clients and guides on commercial high-altitude mountain expeditions, the authors identify conditions that make authority relinquishment likely. They also identify the benefits and drawbacks of authority relinquishment and compare them with the benefits and drawbacks of two frequently studied approaches to managing agency relationships—formal authority and authority decentralization.
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 | 0.043 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".