A Literature Review on Corporate Governance Mechanisms: Past, Present, and Future*
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
ABSTRACT This study is a literature review on corporate governance. Its objective is to consolidate our knowledge in this field, examine its evolution, and propose avenues for future research. In our review of the past and present literature on various governance measures and their effect on firm performance, we find that the empirical results are mixed for many of the governance mechanisms studied. We propose that these mixed results may be due to applying a “one size fits all” set of governance measures, which is not effective for all types of firms due to the complexity of organizations and the differences in ownership structures. We therefore explore more technologically advanced methodologies, including machine learning. We believe that this line of research could not only improve and refine existing governance measures but also allow us to better target which set of mechanisms might be appropriate for a firm based on its particular characteristics. We encourage future researchers in corporate governance to consider this approach in order to shed light on and fill the gaps in this area of research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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