MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135597359 · doi:10.1142/s0219622009003302

A RISK SCORING MODEL AND APPLICATION TO MEASURING INTERNET STOCK PERFORMANCE

2009· article· en· W2135597359 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

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisEquity (law)The InternetBusinessReturn on equityStock (firearms)Computer scienceEconometricsActuarial scienceStock exchangeFinanceEconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a risk scoring model to assess the performance of 27 US companies listed online by applying Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and comparing with the traditional financial measure Return on Equity (ROE). The DEA evaluation process involves two processes: (1) computation of operating efficiency and effectiveness to measure a company's operating performance, and (2) measurement of the return level per unit of risk to provide guidance for their investors. The risk scoring model is useful for both investors and company managers. For investors, it yields a new stock selecting strategy. For managers, it provides a risk-adjusted performance evaluation process. Empirical results show that for the Internet industry, the effectiveness of a company is more important than operating efficiency. Investors investing in efficient online companies yield higher returns.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.322 · 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