MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009964161

Family involvement and R&D expenses in the context of weak property rights protection : an examination of non-state-owned listed companies in China

2018· article· en· W7009964161 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Generalizability theoryProperty rightsControl (management)Agency costPrincipal–agent problemProperty (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of family involvement on firm behaviour is an issue of global interest, yet paradoxically few studies examine the behaviour of family firms in the unique socio-political environment of China. We investigate the cross-institutional generalizability of the behavioural agency model, emphasizing the non-economic goals of controlling families as a driver of unique yet predictable behaviours in Chinese family firms and examine the relationship between family involvement and the R&D expenses reported by these firms. We propose that in a context of weak property rights protection such as China’s, the opportunity for family owners to attain transgenerational control is subject to the additional risk of state predation. We consequently expect economic goals to prevail over family-centred non-economic goals in Chinese family firms and hypothesize that their reported R&D expenses increase with family involvement due to severe Type II agency problems. Moreover, we examine the effect of positive and negative performance feedback on this relationship. Longitudinal data from non-state-owned listed companies in China provide overall support for these contentions. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicFamily Business Performance and SuccessionFrench-language works237,207