MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400428860 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v17n3p65

Study of the Relationship between the Audit Committee and the Supervisory Board in the New Companies Act

2024· article· en· W4400428860 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liu Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAccountingAudit committeeShareholderLegislatorCorporate governanceInternal auditAuditCorporate titleCorporate lawFinanceLawLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proposed Amendments to the Company Law was considered and passed on December 29, 2023, marking an important update to the foundational law of China's modern enterprise system. The revision has made in-depth adjustments to issues that are not compatible and harmonized with the development, and seeks to provide a solid legal guarantee for the sustainable development of the market economy through the innovation of the corporate governance system. One of the highlights of this revision is the internal supervision and check and balance mechanism of the company, which introduces a brand-new internal supervision organization in Privately Owned Limited Liability Companies and Publicly Listed Joint-Stock Corporations, Including Wholly State-Owned Enterprises and the Audit Committee under corporate board is responsible for the internal supervision of the company. This major revision, the legislator breaks the traditional supervision two-tier system model, the introduction of a single-tier system supervision model, not only is the legislator of the traditional supervisory board and supervisors exercise of the company's internal supervision rights can not be fully and effectively perform their duties of the disappointment, but also released by the shareholders of the centralism to the director-centered signal.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207