MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Much Investment Choice is Enough for Members?

2006· article· en· W2025553029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Gerrans, Marilyn Clark‐Murphy, Craig Speelman

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Accounting Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)Asset allocationAsset (computer security)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessInvestment (military)Sample (material)FinanceInvestment decisionsAlternative assetEconomicsActuarial scienceMarketingBehavioral economicsComputer sciencePortfolioPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years Australians have been given increased responsibility in making investment strategy decisions for their superannuation contributions. The investment choices superannuation funds typically offer include ready-made options with a strategic asset allocation or a “do-it-yourself option where the members choose their own asset allocation. This paper examines a sample of choices by members of a large industry fund which allows members any combination of six ready-made pools and eight asset classes. About one-quarter of these decisions involve choices which suggest a possibly naïve view of diversification unless members are conscious of resulting asset allocations.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Accounting ReviewSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207