Corporate control, family firms and dividend decisions in Canada
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
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between dividend payments, firms’ decisions control and the nature of family firms, in order to assess whether large shareholders expropriate wealth from minority shareholders in Canada. Using data collected from various sources, we formulated and tested three hypotheses related to this issue using OLS and logit regression models. Our results indicate that in Canadian firms, dividends are used as a protective mechanism for minority shareholders against the possibility of expropriation by large shareholders. The protective power of dividend, however, seems less effective in Canadian family firms. The hidden reason is the control that families exert on the dividend payout policy. Overall, our results show no clear evidence of expropriation of wealth inflicted on small shareholders by large shareholders. This research has shown that the financial policies of Canadian firms in which a family represents the majority of the shareholders are insufficiently studied and deserve the attention of finance academia and professionals, due to their significant impact on corporate dividend policy
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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