MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1832590774

La sélection de portefeuille à laide du Goal Programming imprécis : intégration des préférences du gestionnaire

2007· article· fr· W1832590774 on OpenAlexaff
Nabil Mansour, Abdelwaheb Rebaï, Belaı̈d Aouni

Bibliographic record

VenueASAC · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En selection de portefeuille, le gestionnaire considere simultanement plusieurs objectifs tels que le rendement, la liquidite et le risque de portefeuille. Ces derniers sont conflictuels et incommensurables. De plus, ils peuvent etre entaches d’imprecision. Generalement, le gestionnaire de portefeuille cherche la meilleure combinaison des titres qui repond a ses objectifs d’investissement. Le modele du Goal Programming imprecis sera utilise pour trouver le portefeuille le plus satisfaisant. Les preferences du gestionnaire de portefeuille seront prises en consideration, de maniere explicite, et ce, a l’aide des fonctions de satisfaction.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASACSame topicOptimization and Mathematical ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207