MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248103751 · doi:10.24124/2010/bpgub1438

Agency costs of multiple directorships: Toronto Stock Exchange - 2007-2008

2010· dissertation· en· W4248103751 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
John Nolan Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsWorkloadAccountingStock exchangeBusinessAgency (philosophy)Corporate governanceAgency costSample (material)ShareholderStock (firearms)FinanceEconomicsEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a treatment of the agency costs to shareholders potentially caused by multiple directorships in firms listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The sample set is comprised of the compulsory annual reports as extracted from the OSIRIS database service by Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. The data is limited to partial annual reports for 2007 and 2008 in order to capture the collapse in the financial sector in the United States. A score ofworkload is assigned to over 14,000 reported director positions. The position data is then tallied and cross-referenced to produce information on board workload within a firm and the total workload those directors face. The governance score, the difference between those workloads, is intended to capture director workload external to the board. This is compared to a definition of agency cost using a log regression. Weakness in the initial results created a desire to apply another analytical tool -a comparison of averages using EViews. There appear to be effects of underconnected and over-connected boards of directors but the definition of agency cost seems to be insufficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→