An Empirical Analysis of Canadian Shareholder Proposals
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
In recent years Canadian shareholders have become more active in submitting proposals that cover a variety of issues. As a first attempt to comprehensively examine the nature of shareholder proposals in Canada, we first give a brief history of Canadian shareholder proposal activities and summarize their features. Then we conduct statistical analyses of the shareholder proposals’ filer identity and issue type and investigate their impacts on voting outcomes, and detect how the stock market responds to shareholder proposals in the period 2001-2005. The voting analysis shows that filer type and proposal subject are important influences on voting outcomes. Proposals submitted by institutions or coordinated shareholder groups gain more support than those submitted by individuals. The voting behavior of one large pension fund has strong impacts on voting outcomes. Overall, the financial market does not respond to news about shareholder proposals. Differences between Canadian and U.S. shareholder proposals are also highlighted and discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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