DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the emphasis on increased corporate governance standards in the Commonwealth Caribbean region has focussed on the role and responsibilities of directors and o cers of the company. This is no doubt due to the fact that there is general consensus that many of the corporate failings worldwide have been due, in some part, to poor management and accountability. This is true of the corporate collapses in the Commonwealth Caribbean, in particular, the fi nancial crisis in Jamaica in the early 1990s1 and fi nancial debacles in Trinidad and Tobago in the early 2000s.2 Where much of the Commonwealth Caribbean has adopted the Canadian style company law model, they have also incorporated a greater degree of director and o cer responsibility and liability. With the increased exposure of directors and o cers in Companies Acts in the region there has also been an introduction of varying degrees of protection, including a due diligence defence, and director and o cer indemnifi cation. The legislation also permits the availability of insurance protection which was previously unavailable. The business judgment rule has also emerged through Canadian case law as a defence for directors’ breach of duty and arguably could therefore form a part of the Commonwealth Caribbean corporate law jurisprudence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".