MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2993315304 · doi:10.3390/jrfm12040182

Internal Control and SMEs’ Sustainable Growth: The Moderating Role of Multiple Large Shareholders

2019· article· en· W2993315304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liangcheng Wang, Yining Dai, Yuye Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaSichuan UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsShareholderBusinessSustainable growth rateControl (management)Emerging marketsSample (material)Industrial organizationAccountingCorporate governanceFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) face more risks for sustainable growth due to a lack of resources than large firms in emerging economies. Hence, it is more likely for SMEs to look to risk management for survival in turbulent markets. As a tool of risk management, whether internal control indeed has contributions to the sustainable growth of SMEs, particularly conditional on multiple large shareholders, is empirically unexplored. Using a sample of SMEs listed in China, this study examines the relationship between internal control and sustainable growth, and assesses a moderating role of multiple large shareholders. The results show that effective internal control significantly promotes SMEs to achieve sustainable growth, and the effect is moderated by multiple large shareholders, suggesting that the role of internal control is more prominent in SMEs with multiple large shareholders. These results are robust to a battery of sensitivity tests. This study extends the literature by providing empirical evidence on the role of internal control in SMEs’ sustainable growth.

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→