Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has two essential objectives. The first is to provide a survey of corporate law's key theoretical themes. The second is to offer an assessment of the manner in which the literature has evolved over time. A key purpose of the enquiry is to identify potential future trajectories for corporate law scholarship. The bulk of the article is devoted to a chronological overview of the major themes dealt with in the theoretical literature on corporate law. It starts with a brief description of debates concerning corporate personality that captured a great deal of attention in the early decades of the twentieth century. Next, it summarizes the analysis influenced by a ‘separation of ownership and control’ thesis set down by Berle and Means. This is followed by an overview of the economically oriented ‘contractarian’ model of the company that has dominated theoretical analysis of corporate law from the 1980s onwards. Critiques of this approach and interdisciplinary work that takes economic analysis as a point of departure are outlined. The discussion here focuses primarily on US material since most of the theoretical contributions concerning corporate law have come from America. Nevertheless, an overview of input from academics in the UK, Canada, and Australia is also provided. Once the chronological overview is complete, the focus shifts to four potential trajectories for corporate law scholarship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.233 | 0.101 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".