Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citation (2005), "List of Contributors", Lehman, C.R., Tinker, T., Merino, B. and Neimark, M. (Ed.) Corporate Governance: Does Any Size Fit? (Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 11), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. ix-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-7060(05)11015-3 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Copyright © 2005, Emerald Group Publishing Limited Book Chapters Contents List of Contributors List of Ad Hoc Reviewers Editorial Board Corporate Governance: Does any Size Fit? Corporate Governance: A Case of ‘Misplaced Concreteness’? Does One Size Fit All? Transplanting English Takeover Law into China : Governmentality, Corporate Governance and EthicsSed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Accounting for Inclusiveness: The Corporate Response to the Challenge of HIV/AIDS in South Africa Corporate Governance in China: A Lack of Critical Reflexivity? The Austrian Way: Director Conduct in the Context of Legal and Cultural Frameworks of Corporate Governance Accountability and Independence in Corporate Governance: An Analysis of Board Disclosures in Canada A Look into the Role of Human Resource Management in Corporate Governance and Risk Management: The Philippine Experience An Examination of Shareholder–Stakeholder Governance Tension: A Case Study of the Collapses of Ansett Holdings and Air New Zealand Agency Theory, Ethics and Corporate Governance Beyond Law and Regulation: A Corporate Governance Model of Ethical Decision-Making Effective Corporate Governance Reform and Organisational Pluralism: Reframing Culture, Leadership and Followership
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.752 | 0.741 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".