MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996272675 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12211

Paper and Hill: An In‐Class Corporate Governance Case

2019· article· en· W2996272675 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Norman T. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryCorporate governanceCorporationDutyClass (philosophy)BusinessAccountingDuty of careLoyaltyCorporate lawPublic relationsManagementEconomicsFinanceMarketingPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Corporate governance is a set of rules and processes that help ensure that firms are effectively run for the benefit of their stakeholders. Good corporate governance is predicated on having directors fulfill their fiduciary duties while acting as stewards of the corporation. The fact that good corporate governance is essential to a well‐functioning and prosperous society is reflected in CPA Canada's Strategy and Governance competency. Unfortunately, there are few in‐class Canadian corporate governance cases that instructors can use to help accounting students improve their understanding of these three fundamental governance concepts: director duty of care, director duty of loyalty, and the business judgment rule. This Canadian corporate governance case is based on the actual events regarding the approval of Steven Hill's employment contract as the Chair of Paper Enterprises Inc. The case is presented using PowerPoint slides, rather than in a traditional narrative format, as it intended to be used as an in‐class case that does not require advance student preparation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicAccounting Education and CareersFrench-language works237,207