GOVERNANCE UNDER UNCERTAINTY: TASK ASSIGNMENT IN PRODUCER CONTROLLED RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, Australia, United States, and a number of other countries there are considerable number of producer controlled research organizations (PCROs) in the agricultural sector, charged with the task of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development (R&D) projects. Given the impact of PCROs on productivity of agricultural sector and food security, the primary objective of this study is to improve the governance of PCROs by providing knowledge of the decision-making process and governance structure of these producer-led entities. The information related to the current governance structures and decision-making processes of PCROs is attained through analyzing a series of interviews with managers and directors of key PCROs in Australia, the U.S. and Canada. A great deal of similarity was observed across PCROs both in terms of the decision-making process and governance structure. In particular, PCROs do not tend to separate management and oversight tasks. The producers elected directors of these organizations are involved in management decisions. This observed practice is in contrast with most of the theories and empirical studies focusing on the governance structure of non-profit (NP) and for-profit (FP) organizations (Brown & Guo, 2010; Fama & Jensen, 1983; LeRoux & Langer, 2016; Miller-Millesen, 2003). Based on information gained from the interviews, observable characteristics of PCROs explained in the literature, and agency theory this dissertation develops a theoretical model to describe the unusual task assignment in the PCROs. The theoretical model suggests that because of the long investment horizons in the PCROs, the compensation of management teams based on their contributions to return on investments is not feasible. Therefore, the PCROs have to reward their executives on the basis of a measure of efforts exerted. Hence, the directors’ involvement reduces the volatility of managers’ compensation. Motivated by the theoretical model, a survey whose participants are the directors of Saskatchewan’s PCROs was conducted to examine the consistency of theoretical model’s implications and the task assignment practices of PCROs in the real world. The examination of the survey results suggests the presence of consistencies between the theoretical model’s implications and observed outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".