MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944628603 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2019.2.001

Corporate Governance: A scientometric analysis

2019· article· en· W2944628603 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBusiness and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceBusinessAccountingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research includes an extensive review of the studies associated with Corporate Governance. The study uses Scopus database as a primary search engine to collect the necessary data and collects 333 records over the period 2010-2018.The purpose of this research is to investigate the structured study of research activities carried out around the subject of corporate governance which have been published in international, well-known and credible magazines, books and sites. For this purpose, the study searches the phrase corporate governance on Scopus site and detects around 7200 documents and 2000 of highly cited documents are selected for the purpose of the investigation accomplished by a bibliometrics tool. The study limits the survey on published articles over the period 1993-2009 and detects 806 documents among 2000 documents from Scopus. The results indicate that papers published by researchers in United States have received the highest citations (8669), followed by United Kingdom (2094) and Australia with 1557 citations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · 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