Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks beyond agency theory and utilizes multiple theoretical lenses to explore governance in firms adopting dual class share structure. A model is offered that proposes dual class share structure as a contingent governance mechanism. Governance is asserted to operate at individual, industry and national levels under different rationales. This paper attempts to investigate the theoretical underpinnings for the reasons why firms frequently adopt the dual class equity structure, i.e. a capital (or ownership) structure based on the issuance of shares with differential voting rights (DeAngelo et al. 1985). Such an ownership structure is justified by some researchers as a defensive structure adopted by the directors and managers of a firm to prevent hostile acquisitions and takeovers by corporate raiders (Grossman and Hart, 1988; Harris and Raviv, 1988), and as a means of wealth enhancement of all shareholders (Alchain & Demsetz, 1972; Gromb 1993; Zingales, 1995). Many researchers however, assert that dual class shares are a mechanism by which insiders expropriate value from the minority shareholders, extract private benefits of control and ensure managerial entrenchment (Jarrell and Poulson, 1988; Gompers et al., 2004). The rationale for both of these assertions, as for most
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.591 | 0.335 |
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".