MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134787308 · doi:10.3138/infor.47.1.5

A Discrete Stochastic Goal Program for Portfolio Selection: The Case of United Arab Emirates Equity Market

2009· article· en· W2134787308 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFOR Information Systems and Operational Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioEquity (law)Stochastic programmingGoal programmingNormalitySelection (genetic algorithm)EconomicsComputer scienceEconometricsPortfolio optimizationModern portfolio theoryActuarial scienceFinancial economicsOperations researchMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractIn this paper we propose a stochastic goal programming approach to generate a satisfying portfolio for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) equity market. Under the assumption of non-normality of the equity returns, we propose utilizing stochastic goal programming by considering all or a number of scenarios. Some of the goals considered in our model are capital preservation (total returns), current income, and risk. The model is tested on the monthly equity data in UAE from 2002 to 2005. The model results are compared to the traditional Markowitz model covering all the criteria to evidence the superiority of stochastic goal programming for portfolio optimization.Keywords: Stochastic programminggoal programmingportfolio selection

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.323 · 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