Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate law theory in Anglo-American countries has long been dominated by economic analysis. While significant efforts have been made to critique the economic theory of the corporation and a number of alternate "progressive" theories have been offered - there is still no single theory that stands in opposition to the Nexus of Contracts theory. This thesis utilizes historical analysis to show that before 1930 there were two dominant and opposing theories of the corporation: Contractual theory (or early economic theory), which conceptualized the corporation as merely a collection of freely contracting individuals; and Entity theory (or early sociological theory), which conceptualized the corporation as a real entity with an existence distinct from its members. The competition between these two contrasting theories created a balance in the corporate law debate between the economic and social aspects of corporations. But Entity theory fell out of favour in Anglo-American countries and the balance was lost. The effects of that loss are evident in modem Anglo-American societies with our disproportionate preference for private interests over public interests. Our fascination with short term profits, our readiness to make lay-offs and rampant mergers and acquisition activity are a few examples of this phenomenon. This thesis argues for the revival of the social theory of the corporation to restore balance to the corporate law debate. Using advances in sociology and in particular developments from organizational theory and institutional analysis, the building blocks of an updated social theory of the corporation are outlined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".