Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the episodes of WorldCom, Enron, Parmalat, Lehman Brother, Nortel (in Canada), corporate governance and its impact on shareholder value has been brought into the forefront of the debate. Studies on the relationship between corporate governance and the performance of firms to date suggest a positive association between corporate governance and various measures of performance of companies. Unlike the widely dispersed ownership in countries like United States and United Kingdom, the ownership of companies in Canada is concentrated a controlling shareholder (usually a wealthy family) owns majority of the equity and ownership of firms. In Canada studies on the relationship between corporate governance and various performance indicators of firms are mixed. The present study examines the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance in Canada using financial performance data of 152 firms in 2009 and corporate governance ranking of those firms. The empirical results based on regression (ordinary least squares) showed that an overall corporate governance variable has a positive impact on firm's performance in Canada. These results are invariant to the choice of firm performance indicators like Return on Asset (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE). These results are broadly in conformity with earlier studies (although there were mixed results in earlier empirical investigation). These results are also interesting given the fact that Canadian ownership structure is more concentrated. Most of the Canadian companies are listed also in US markets and that provides impetus for corporate governance practices to be implemented in Canada as well. Given these facts, the empirical results are not surprising. Apart from these facts, these results are based on data set of 152 Canadian companies for 2009 only there is need for more empirical verification and calibration. But that is beyond the scope of the present study due to constraint of resources and time. --P.iii-iv.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".