MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985810281 · doi:10.1080/14697688.2010.506108

Long-term capital growth: the good and bad properties of the Kelly and fractional Kelly capital growth criteria

2010· article· en· W1985810281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Finance · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)Term (time)Capital (architecture)Investment (military)EconomicsManagementImage (mathematics)Art historyClassical economicsArtComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceEngineeringVisual artsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements Special thanks go to Tom Cover, Michael Dempster and John Mulvey for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This is an expanded and updated discussion of a chapter in MacLean et al. (2010b MacLean, LC, Thorp, EO and Ziemba, WT editors. 2010b. The Kelly Capital Growth Investment Criterion: Theory and Practice, Singapore: World Scientific. [Google Scholar]).

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.201 · 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