MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604896812 · doi:10.1111/jacf.12218

The Role of Corporate Boards: A Roundtable Discussion of Where We're Going and Where We've Been

2017· article· en· W2604896812 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of applied corporate finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicState Capitalism and Financial Governance
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderCorporate governanceCorporationInstitutional investorAccountingAccountabilityBusinessStakeholderCompetence (human resources)Public relationsVanguardCorporate lawInvestor relationsFinanceManagementEconomicsMarketingPolitical scienceStrategic managementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this roundtable that took place at the 2016 Millstein Governance Forum at Columbia Law School, four directors of public companies discuss the changing role and responsibilities of corporate boards. In response to increasingly active investors who are looking to management and boards for more information and greater accountability, the four panelists describe the growing demands on boards for both competence and commitment to the job. Despite considerable improvements since the year 2000, and especially since the 2008 financial crisis, the clear consensus is that U.S. corporate directors must become more like owners of the corporation who “truly represent the long‐term interests of all of the shareholders.” But if activist investors appear to pose the most formidable new challenge for corporate directors—one that has the potential to lead to shortsighted managerial decision‐making—there has been another, less visible development that should be welcomed by wellrun companies that are investing in their future growth as well as meeting investors’ expectations for current performance. According to Raj Gupta, who serves on the boards of HewlettPackard, Delphi Automotive, Arconic, and the Vanguard Group, [O]ld‐fashioned institutional shareholders—many of them long‐term buyers and holders—now account for a remarkably large percentage of the ownership of U.S. companies. If you looked closely, I think you would find that, in every large U.S. public company today, as few as 20 large institutional shareholders control 50 to 75% of the stock. And although they're not activists who resort to the proxy process, they are also not the silent shareholders of the past . Although these investors are “bringing enormous pressure to bear on management,” the good news for managements and boards is that such concentration of ownership should make it far easier for them to build trust by making their case directly to “the investment community,” and so win the market support that can give companies the “breathing room” to carry out their long‐term business plans. Another piece of encouraging news for boards is that, by drawing on a more diverse pool of directors than in the past—one that includes a rapidly growing number of women, people of color, and “internationals”—they are finding themselves with a breadth of perspective and experience that has better prepared them to respond to changes in an increasingly global and volatile business environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · 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