MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110695864 · doi:10.1142/s0219622005001660

ASSESSING FINANCIAL RISK TOLERANCE OF PORTFOLIO INVESTORS USING DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS

2005· article· en· W2110695864 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisInvestment (military)BusinessActuarial sciencePortfolioGovernment (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)FinanceInvestment strategyInvestment portfolioEconometricsEconomicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For some investors their own personal investment counsellors address their investment strategy; for others automated means are used. To protect investors, the Canadian Government has enacted the "Know Your Client" Act requiring that all investment dealers and vendors of securities must know their clients and advise them on the appropriate investment strategy. This paper uses Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in a novel manner by applying it to a large data set of answers to a number of psychological questions. A Slacks Based Model was used to estimate investor risk tolerance. The model analyses the risk profile of the investor and can be used as a guide to match the risk rating of the investment vehicles for the client. Statistical comparisons were also carried out to show how risk tolerance relates to various demographic variables. Finally, the DEA results were validated through comparisons with the commercial system already in use.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.355 · 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