Ownership structure and expropriation in stock exchange listed firms
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
This paper analyses firms’ ownership structure and corporate governance in seven countries, with an emphasis on stock exchange listed firms. This focus is, in our view, important because these firms are more representative of the economies of countries included in our sample. Our results indicate that in Canada, Europe and East-Asia, ownership structure is highly concentrated. Most of the firms are controlled by at least one large shareholder who reinforces his or her control with devices such as multiple voting right shares, pyramidal structures, cross ownership, and reciprocal holding. In the U.S., firms’ ownership structure is more diffuse. The use of means to separate ownership from control is less present and the control of the large shareholder is lower than in the other sample countries. Being listed on the stock exchange can explain the firm’s ownership structure. Exchange-listed firms, which are generally larger in size than unlisted firms, tend to have more diffused ownership. Further, the legal system hypothesis formulated by La Porta, Lopez-De-Silanes, Shleifer & Vishny (1998) does not hold for the countries we analysed
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 | 0.001 |
| 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