MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093133284 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v12n11p1

Governance and Performance in Insurance Companies: A Bibliometric Analysis and A Meta-Analysis

2020· article· en· W3093133284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luisa Anderloni, Ornella Moro, Alessandra Tanda

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceAccountingMeta-analysisPoint (geometry)Quantitative analysis (chemistry)BusinessInsurance industryEmpirical researchActuarial scienceFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometricsMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.015
Bibliometrics0.1200.098
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

BibliometricsMeta-epidemiology (broad)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207