MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929608155 · doi:10.3968/10942

Shareholders' Agreement and Articles of Association of Limited Liability Companies Under Context of China: Resolution of Conflict of Shareholders' Will

2019· article· en· W2929608155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanyan Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderCorporate governanceBusinessAccountingContext (archaeology)LiabilityCorporate lawLimited liabilityChinaConflict of interestLaw and economicsLawFinanceEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a vital instrument for the governance of limited liability companies in China, the shareholder agreement has been approved by the Company Law of a great number of countries by virtue of its positive significance in building the private order of the governance of limited liability companies and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders in the company. However, there is still a lack of clear and systematic norms in the legal system of China. Currently, in practice, a number of shareholders of limited liability companies have established shareholder agreements to adjust their rights and obligations stipulated in the Company Law and articles of association. Under such circumstance, both as the embodiment of the will of shareholders, in case of a conflict between the shareholder agreement and the articles of association on the governance structure or regulations of the company, the solution to the conflict is the object of this paper.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207