MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153650307 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2010.03.001

A Portfolio Selection Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study of Iranian pharmaceutical industry

2010· article· en· W2153650307 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

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processSelection (genetic algorithm)PortfolioFuzzy logicPharmaceutical industryBusinessAnalytic network processProcess (computing)Computer scienceManufacturing engineeringMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringOperations researchEconomicsArtificial intelligenceFinancial economicsPharmacologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portfolio selection is one of the important problems encountered by any investor. The purpose of this paper is to solve a real stock portfolio selection problem in Iran. According to the uncertain environments in which financial decisions are made, most of the recent works in this field use fuzzy sets theory in order to incorporate these uncertainties into their analysis. The problem is to determine how to allocate a limited fund among the stocks of some pharmaceutical companies in Tehran stock exchange. For this purpose we apply two fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methods to this problem. Finally, the results obtained from the two methods are compared in terms of the solution quality.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.264 · 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