MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805141233 · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12287

Older and Wiser: How CEOs’ Time Perspective Influences Long‐Term Investments in Environmentally Responsible Technologies

2018· article· en· W2805141233 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalia Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, Pratima Bansal, Juan Alberto Aragón Correa

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Corporate governanceCompensation (psychology)Sample (material)Test (biology)PopulationExecutive compensationTerm (time)Predictive powerPower (physics)EconomicsBusinessMarketingSocial psychologyPsychologyManagementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most theories of corporate governance argue that chief executive officers (CEOs) take less risk as they near the end of their career, and therefore are less likely to make major investments. This prediction is based on decisions related to firm‐specific benefits; however, it may not be generalizable to decisions that involve broad societal goals. In terms of societal investments, CEOs with a longer time perspective may be more likely, rather than less likely, to invest. In this paper, we argue that a CEO's future time perspective is fostered by shorter career horizons, longer tenures, higher organizational ownership and less short‐term compensation. We test these hypotheses on 150 observations from the US investor‐owned electric power generation sector over a three‐year unbalanced sample (64.3% of the population). We applied random‐effects generalized least squares (GLS) estimations to test our hypotheses, and found support for three out of four hypothesized relationships.

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)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations96
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207