Cardiovascular disease beyond the QOF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of historical stock market performance invariably focus on total shareholder return (TSR). Contrary to its name, TSR does not represent the return earned by equity investors but is instead the capital accumulation rate investors achieve if they purchase shares at the start date, reinvest all dividends to buy additional shares, and hold all shares to the terminal date. Investors who use historical TSR rates as a point of departure for establishing their assumed capital accumulation rates can be misled in two ways. First, because only the rare investor can afford to reinvest all dividends and sell no shares over a lifetime, the capital accumulation rate will almost always be lower than the TSR rate. Second, the remarkable historical growth in accumulated capital from reinvested dividends can mistakenly persuade some investors that dividends, rather than price appreciation, govern investment performance. Departures from 100% dividend reinvestment affect capital accumulation, and once investors make the dividend reinvestment decision, capital accumulation depends entirely on price appreciation. <b>TOPICS:</b>Long-term/retirement investing, equity portfolio management, wealth management
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".