The proper role of shareholders in the decision-making processes of modern large Australian public companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calls for increased shareholder intervention in the routine business operations of large Australian public companies should be reconsidered. Constant shareholder involvement in matters concerning the management of a company's the routine business affairs is likely to cause several intractable problems. Most shareholders do not have the information or skills necessary to make sound decisions on either operational or policy issues. In any event, given that they are a collection of individuals and groups of people with different, and often, irreconcilable interests, shareholder opinions are bound to differ as to which course will best serve the interest of a company. Increased shareholder intervention in operational issues thus poses the threat of a decline in the quality of corporate decision making. For these reasons, the management of the business affairs of large, complex companies should continue to be the primary responsibility of boards of directors. Directors are, more often than not, better informed about the long-term prospects and value of a company. Therefore, in order to maximise the value of public companies, shareholder participation in decision-making should continue to occur in limited circumstances, as a means of promoting the accountability of directors.
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 | 0.023 | 0.043 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".