Do private equity target firms exhibit less effectual governance structures?
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
We investigated the unique corporate governance structure of Australian private equity target firms to establish the disciplinary motive underpinning a corporate buy-out and tested our expectations using a sample of 43 publicly listed private equity target firms and a control sample of 182 conventional corporate targets, matched by year and industry, for the period 2001–2010. The findings provide evidence of a less effectual corporate governance structure for private equity target firms. In particular, our analysis reveals that, relative to our benchmark sample, private equity target firms have larger boards, more board meetings and a greater inside ownership. Similarly, our results show that the probability of a firm being a private equity target increases with board size, percentage of insider directors, board meetings and CEO ownership. Consistent with results from work elsewhere, private equity target firms appear to perform ex post reactive monitoring roles rather than ex ante proactive roles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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