MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992571507

L'influence de l'évolution du gouvernment d'enterprise sur les dirigeants des sociétés : essai de droit comparé (France et Angleterre)

2006· dissertation· fr· W6992571507 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)LegislationField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essence of running an enterprise which is defined as a system by which the companies are lead and compared is generally set in priority terms. For some, they favour in the first instance to secure the economic efficiency then to scope with the social problems at a later stage---'Shareholder model'. Others are inclined to consider that the priority lies into an environmental, sharing and caring society etc.---'Stakeholder model'. Where the evolution of the corporate governance is going to lead to? And how does it affect the directors' responsibility? After a thorough study of its European evolution in particular in France and England, we figure out that raising the black flag of the stakeholder theory will end up into an ideology completely false dislodging the concept of the natural reality around us. On the other side, claiming the predominance of the sole shareholder system will become a dangerous apprehension opposing the objective of this theory: In our perspective we see that the ultimate global wealth of the enterprise in the long run is closely linked to the consideration and the deep satisfaction of the needs and the interests of the different parties joining the enterprise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207