MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089760519 · doi:10.1016/s0123-5923(10)70110-8

EVIDENCIA DE LA GERENCIA ACTIVA DE LOS PORTAFOLIOS DE LOS FONDOS VOLUNTARIOS DE PENSIONES EN COLOMBIA: UN ANÁLISIS DE DESEMPEÑO UTILIZANDO ETFS PROXY (Artículo publicado en inglés)

2010· article· en· W2089760519 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

VenueEstudios Gerenciales · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionBusinessWelfare economicsFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to find evidence that shows that either active management of private pension funds in Colombia actually adds value to the investors or, on the contrary, investors would achieve better results if they invested in passively managed products such as, for example, an ETF (Exchange Trade Fund). After conducting a review of data available from 30 different private pension funds in Colombia and 30 ETFs that had similar investment goals to these portfolios, our findings reveal that, using common performance indicators, a Colombian investor would have a better ROI by investing in passively managed products (ETFs) than in portfolios currently offered by voluntary pension funds in Colombia.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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