MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135488551 · doi:10.2174/1874915100801010001

Factors That Affect Canadian Propensity to Direct Investment Abroad: Evidence from the Indian Real Estate Market

2008· article· en· W2135488551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amarjit Gill, Nahum Biger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Business Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateInvestment (military)Affect (linguistics)Propensity score matchingReal estate investment trustMonetary economicsBusinessCapital (architecture)FinanceEconomicsDemographic economicsPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the affects of Canadian investors' direct investment expertise and perception on capital losses on their propensity to directly invest in the Indian real estate market.Canadian investors were surveyed to find out the degree to which investors' direct investment expertise and perception on capital losses impact on investors' propensity to direct investment.To test the effects of the above variables, Canadian were asked about their beliefs and feelings regarding their propensity to directly invest in the Indian real estate market.They were also asked about perceptions on capital losses.We found that the degree of Canadian investors' propensity to direct investment is related to the degree of investors' investment expertise and their perception on capital losses; but the extent of these factors differ based on age and level of education of Canadian investors.The findings may be useful for investment managers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Business JournalSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207