MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140735119 · doi:10.61190/fsr.v13i1.4779

Formulating retirement targets and the impact of time horizon on asset allocation

2004· article· en· W2140735119 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Services Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicAsset allocationRule of thumbPortfolioTime horizonEconomicsAsset (computer security)Meaning (existential)Actuarial scienceInvestment (military)Stochastic investment modelRetirement planningHorizonBondFunction (biology)MicroeconomicsFinanceComputer scienceMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper looks at standard retirement targets such as "70@65," meaning 70% income replace­ ment at age 65, and reconsiders them in a probabilistic setting. The paper uses a chance constrained programming model, supplemented with Monte Carlo simulation, to extend the target to "70%1 or 70@65" meaning a 70% chance of meeting the target. One implication of the paper is that asset mix is a function or the investment horizon. This conflicts with the constant portfolio result of Samuelson et al. but supports the standard "your age in bonds" rule of thumb of financial planning professionals.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Services ReviewSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207