Governance and Performance in Insurance Companies: A Bibliometric Analysis and A Meta-Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a review of theoretical contributions and empirical studies on the external and internal mechanisms of corporate governance of insurance companies and their effects on performance and/or risk. Thanks to the analysis of the studies published between 1985 and 2019 through bibliometric tools, we are able to illustrate the networks of scientific collaborations (co-authorship) and relationships between the most used terms, also highlighting the most significant groups of scholars and research strands. Additionally, the paper carries out a meta-analysis of around thirty quantitative articles that show a relationship between the quantitative-qualitative characteristics of the Board of Directors and the performance of the insurance company. The empirical studies show a consensus on the positive contribution of board size and the presence of independent directors on performance. Moreover, insurance research networks do not appear to be very interconnected, especially as regards to emerging markets. The paper also provides a useful starting point for future research aimed at defining the specificities of the governance-performance relationship of insurance companies within an evolving regulatory and market framework.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | BibliometricsMeta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it