MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320823099 · doi:10.3905/jpm.2007.690611

Spanning Tests for Replicable Small-Cap Indexes as Separate Asset Classes

2007· article· en· W2320823099 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

VenueThe Journal of Portfolio Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioDiversification (marketing strategy)Efficient frontierEquity (law)Asset allocationIndex (typography)BusinessEconometricsAsset (computer security)Financial economicsPortfolio optimizationEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical tests of different asset combinations show that the composition of a benchmark portfolio determines whether a replicable G–7 small-cap portfolio can expand the original efficient frontier. Interaction among all assets in a portfolio is key to the effectiveness of a small-cap index in efficient portfolios, and constraints do not always reduce diversification benefits of the small-cap assets. Only a few small-cap portfolios of G-7 countries appear to behave as separate asset classes with portfolio performance-enhancing characteristics when an investor benchmarks these portfolios against the U.S. equity market or an international large-cap portfolio. <b>TOPICS:</b>Risk management, statistical methods

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.229 · 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