Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An effective corporate governance system is vital in modern-day economics and firms. It can help to specify the distribution of roles, responsibilities, and resources among various stakeholders of an organization or society. The enhanced role of the banks in various economic systems demands a higher level of corporate bank governance for a stable and sustainable financial system. In this paper; four major corporate governance models of banks are compared and the financial outcomes of each model are analyzed to assess their alignment with expectations of an effective corporate governance system. The Continental corporate governance model found to be closer to the expectations of an effective corporate governance system compared to the Anglo- Saxon, Chinese, and Islamic banking. Banks under the Continental model charge lower margin to its customers, use bank resources more efficiently and create relative balance in the distribution of resources among all stakeholders compared to the other three models. Banks under the Anglo- Saxon model are charging higher margin to its customer, Chinese banks are under-utilizing the banks’ resources, and Islamic banks are more favoring their shareholders and are riskier among banks of all selected models. Higher involvement of the more stakeholders in the decision-making process of the banks is key to effective corporate governance and sustainable banking system. Reforms in all corporate governance models are recommended while keeping in mind the prior research on corporate governance especially the Sir Adrian Cadbury report.
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".