MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585177698 · doi:10.22495/cocv4i2c1p4

Circumstances relating to interlocking directorates in Italy: An exploratory study

2007· article· en· W2585177698 on OpenAlexaff
Garen Markarian, Antonio Parbonetti, Gary John Previts

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate Ownership and Control · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAccountingInterlockingService (business)InterlockReturn on assetsExploratory researchCapital (architecture)FinanceIndustrial organizationMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a large body of research in the management, accounting, economics, and finance literatures, the relationship between board composition and firm performance is still controversial and ripe for debate (for a recent study, see Boone et al., 2004). Utilizing the theoretical approach of Zahra and Pearce (1989) that identifies the three key roles of the board as oversight, strategy, and service, we examine the effects of having board interlocks between an industrial firm and of financial services firm, and firm characteristics. Using publicly available data on all listed Italian firms for the year 2001, we find that for industrial firms, there is a positive relationship between the number of board interlocks with a bank and current year return on assets, however, the opposite is true for financial services firms. Finally, we find no relationship between interlocking directorates with banks and firm capital structure

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorporate Ownership and ControlSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207