MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213439209 · doi:10.1093/cjcl/cxab010

Shareholder Voting and COVID-19: The China Experience

2021· article· en· W3213439209 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Xi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Chinese Journal of Comparative Law · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderChinaVotingBusinessEmpirical researchAccountingStock exchangeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Corporate governancePolitical scienceFinanceLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using state-of-the-art data-mining techniques, this research constructs a unique dataset comprising the votes cast by Chinese shareholders on 15,553 resolutions laid before 2,888 general meetings of Shanghai Stock Exchange-listed companies in the six-year period between 2015 and 2020. This research empirically depicts, for the first time, the manner in which minority shareholders exercise their rights to vote in China, presenting a counter-thesis to the conventional wisdom of shareholder passivity. In particular, this research offers a unique perspective on how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced Chinese shareholders’ voting behaviour by focusing its empirical investigation on the 76-day time window from 23 January to 7 April 2020, during which period Wuhan, the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, came under a mandatory lockdown order. Our findings offer strong empirical evidence that Chinese shareholders cast their votes in a characteristically more informed manner in the 2020 sample period than they did during the sample periods in the previous five years. The research highlights the potential of shareholder activism in economies where share ownership is concentrated. It also has implications for the ongoing discourse on virtual shareholder meetings and the shareholder franchise.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Chinese Journal of Comparative LawSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207