MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024779190 · doi:10.3905/jpm.2006.661371

The Relative Importance of Asset Allocation and Security Selection

2006· article· en· W2024779190 on OpenAlex
Kodjovi Assoé, Jean-François L’Her, Jean‐François Plante

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

VenueThe Journal of Portfolio Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset allocationPortfolioSelection (genetic algorithm)Alternative assetEquity (law)Asset (computer security)EconomicsCapital asset pricing modelMicroeconomicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There remains an active debate as to whether asset allocation or security selection is more important in investment performance. This revisit of the question uses a normative framework suggested before, but adds a more representative opportunity set for asset allocation, an unbiased dataset for stocks, and a modified security selection methodology that ensures strict uniformity with asset allocation rebalancing rules. In this case, the results do not support a clear hierarchy of investment choice. The extent to which asset allocation or security selection generates dispersion in active return is largely time-dependent. <bold>TOPICS:</bold> <ext-link>Portfolio construction</ext-link>, <ext-link>equity portfolio management</ext-link>, <ext-link>performance measurement</ext-link>

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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