MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126423699 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n6p205

Risk Attitude towards Mandatory Retirement Protection in Hong Kong: Why Are Risky Investments More Attractive?

2014· article· en· W2126423699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ricky S. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Government (linguistics)PerceptionBusinessActuarial sciencePsychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) launched the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) scheme as a major source of retirement protection. Now, over 2.6 million employees and self-employed persons are currently making contribution to this scheme and they are required to decide on allocation of their MPF contributions to different MPF choices. However, we know little about how their decisions are formed. One major contribution of this study is to investigate people’s perceptions of MPF and their preferences of MPF choices. And, this study has adopted the predictions of prospect theory, in order to explain why risky choices are more attractive to the public. Findings indicated that more individuals perceived MPF contribution as a loss, than those who perceived it as a gain; those who perceived MPF as a loss generally made higher contributions to the risky fund.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207