MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403445463 · doi:10.1016/j.bar.2024.101508

Share pledging and corporate misconduct

2024· article· en· W4403445463 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Accounting Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyTrent UniversityFederation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsMisconductBusinessComputer securityCriminologyPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate and find a significant and positive relation between share pledging by controlling shareholders and the likelihood of corporate misconduct. The results remain robust after classifying misconduct into accounting and non-accounting misconduct, and misconduct receiving severe and light penalties. Alleviation of financial constraints, inflation of stock prices, mitigation of margin calls, and expropriation under poor corporate governance are the main motives for corporate misconduct by firms with pledging controlling shareholders. The positive relation between share pledging and corporate misconduct propensity remains after accounting for endogeneity issues, political connections, intensified bank monitoring, and share repurchasers.

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.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.195 · 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