MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010703796 · doi:10.1007/bf02887233

A dynamic decision model for portfolio investment and assets management

2005· article· en· W2010703796 on OpenAlex
Edward Y. Qian, Feng Ying, Higgision James

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

VenueJournal of Zhejiang University Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-modern portfolio theorySharpe ratioPortfolioEconomicsInvestment strategyModern portfolio theoryPortfolio optimizationSelection (genetic algorithm)Investment (military)Investment performanceReplicating portfolioActuarial scienceApplication portfolio managementDecision ruleEfficient frontierMicroeconomicsEconometricsComputer scienceReturn on investmentProject portfolio managementFinancial economicsArtificial intelligenceManagementProject management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses a dynamic portfolio investment problem. It discusses how we can dynamically choose candidate assets, achieve the possible maximum revenue and reduce the risk to the minimum level. The paper generalizes Markowitz’s portfolio selection theory and Sharpe’s rule for investment decision. An analytical solution is presented to show how an institutional or individual investor can combine Markowitz’s portfolio selection theory, generalized Sharpe’s rule and Value-at-Risk (VaR) to find candidate assets and optimal level of position sizes for investment (dis-investment). The result shows that the generalized Markowitz’s portfolio selection theory and generalized Sharpe’s rule improve decision making for investment.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.300 · 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