MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949960994 · doi:10.1080/14735970.2019.1605035

Say on purpose: lessons from Chinese corporate charters

2019· article· en· W2949960994 on OpenAlexafffund
Li-Wen Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Law Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCorporationChinaCorporate lawFunction (biology)Empirical researchAccountingBusinessPublic relationsCorporate governanceState (computer science)Law and economicsManagementEconomicsPolitical scienceLawFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the purpose of the corporation? The debate has continued for a long time without a clear answer partly because corporate law is often silent or ambiguous on the purpose of the corporation. The debate is largely academic and has limited dialogues with corporations that manage business in the real world. If corporations themselves articulate the purpose in their constitutive documents, it might be helpful to resolve the corporate purpose controversy. China offers a valuable empirical setting to examine how corporations formally state the purpose in their corporate charters. The empirical findings in this article show that the purpose clause in the articles of incorporation is not static but evolving with institutional and organisational demands. However, the purpose clause serves only a signalling or marketing function because of external and intrinsic constraints.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Corporate Law StudiesSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207