MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014999868 · doi:10.31838/jcr.07.05.25

THE LAW ON BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE IN MALAYSIA: A REVIEW

2020· review· en· W3014999868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawCorporate lawBusinessSubject (documents)Face (sociological concept)LiabilityLimited liabilitySubject matterAccountingPolitical scienceSociologyCorporate governanceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Directors are responsible for managing and directing the business and affairs of the company and often face difficult situations to decide. Under the business judgment rule (BJR), the officers and directors of a company are immune from liability to the company for losses incurred in corporate transactions within their authority, so long as the transactions are made for proper purpose and in good faith; no material personal interest; is informed about subject matter; and for the best purpose of the company. The objectives of this paper is to examine the law relating to BJR in Malaysia. In achieving the objectives, pure legal research which involved library research has been conducted. Where necessary, special reference has also been made with the law in United States, Canada and Australia on the BJR. The finding shows that the law regarding BJR in Malaysia has been provided in the Companies Act 2016 which is quite similar with the law in Australia. This article concludes that four conditions as stated in section 214 of the Companies Act 2016 must be fulfilled by the directors before BJR can be used to defend their decision making.

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)0.018
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Critical ReviewsSame topicLegal Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207