MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140977710 · doi:10.22495/cocv18i3art10

Ownership structure and women on boards of directors of Canadian listed companies

2021· article· en· W3140977710 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate Ownership and Control · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersUniversité de Moncton
KeywordsAccountingBusinessCorporate governanceShareholderEndogeneityGender diversityAudit committeeAuditDiversity (politics)FinanceEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how the structure of shareholder ownership (i.e., management, external blockholders, and board ownership) affects the presence of women on boards of directors. The results of an analysis of a sample of listed Canadian companies for the period 2007-2015, controlling for endogeneity, indicate that the proportion of women sitting on a firm’s board of directors is influenced by its shareholding structure, thus, supporting the view that the two governance mechanisms of gender diversity and shareholder structure can substitute for each other. The results also show that there is a curvilinear relationship between a company’s ownership structure and the proportion of women on its board of directors and audit committee. Indeed, findings show that as the concentration of company ownership increases, the proportion of women on boards of directors decreases to a threshold, following which we observe an increase in the proportion of women sitting on boards of directors and particularly on audit committees

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.163 · 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