MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235926523 · doi:10.52399/001c.27012

The Effect of the Board of Directors’ Quality on Compensation Fees

2011· article· en· W4235926523 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Zéghal, Sarra Hamza Elleuch

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Finance & Governance Review/Accounting finance & governance review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompensation (psychology)AccountingShareholderBusinessUnivariateQuality (philosophy)GlobeOn boardCorporate governanceExecutive compensationMultivariate statisticsFinancePsychologyStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the effect of the quality of the board of directors on the directors’ compensation. The quality of the board of 204 Canadian firms is defined by adopting a scoring mechanism published by the Globe and Mail’s ‘Report on Business’. It is assessed based on four criteria: board composition, shareholding compensation, shareholder rights and disclosure. Using univariate and multivariate statistical models, our results reveal that shareholding rights, shareholding compensation and disclosure are the significant components in explaining the level of compensation. However, the composition of the board does not have any impact.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting Finance & Governance Review/Accounting finance & governance reviewSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207