MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618530802 · doi:10.1177/030630701003500401

Corporate Governance and Bankruptcy Filing Decisions

2010· article· en· W2618530802 on OpenAlexaff
Kaouthar Lajili, Daniel Zéghal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
KeywordsBankruptcyCorporate governanceFinancial distressBusinessAccountingSample (material)Test (biology)Work (physics)Business failureFinanceFinancial system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the nature and extent of potential linkages between corporate governance characteristics and bankruptcy filing decisions. To test the paper's research hypotheses and follow prior related literature, a sample of financially distressed firms was formed and matched with a group of financially healthy firms in the US between 2001 and 2003. Results show that in addition to lower business and financial health indicators faced by financially distressed firms compared to their financially healthy counterparts, the former group also faced higher director turnover and shorter outside director tenure. In addition, the results indicate that interactions between two or more corporate governance characteristics could have a significant impact on the bankruptcy filing decision, thus suggesting that a multi-theory foundation for governance research could be warranted in the future. Further research is needed to investigate in more depth how boards and management work together, change, make decisions and manage their reputations and careers, not only in the case of financial distress but also in normal business situations.

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)0.015
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.220
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

Citations64
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General ManagementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207