Technology rhetoric and institutional ownership
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article compares actual R&D spend with the managerial rhetoric around technology and innovation contained within corporate disclosures of US-listed firms. We find that, whilst actual R&D spend and patents do not entice institutional investors to increase their stock holdings, firms that espouse technology and innovation in their corporate disclosures are quite successful in drawing in short-term investors. We frame this investor behaviour within the economics of expectation literature. While managers are incentivised to draw in capital, short-horizon investors are less likely to exert due diligence and are rather persuaded by a technology narrative—that is, a ‘gold rush’ effect. This explains our finding that when there is a sudden downturn with stock price crashes, short-term investors rush to withdraw their money from firms that ‘talk tech’. Our findings have implications for managerial rewards systems, especially when these encourage managerial hype.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it