MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344024383 · doi:10.12735/jbm.v5i1p08

Assessment of the Profitability of a Revenue Investment with Random Times between Uniform Successive Returns

2016· article· en· W2344024383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nazim Noueihed, Fadi Asrawi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business & Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexRevenueInvestment (military)BusinessEconomicsEconometricsMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investments with random cash flow streams are much closer to describe the real financial environment of a revenue generating investment than constant cash flow streams .A cash flow stream is considered under risk if at least one of its parameters is a random variable with a given probability distribution. Many models of random cash flows were investigated by researchers. However, this study aims to survey the economic worth of cash flows with random time between equal returns on the initial investment. This study develops criteria for the profitability based on the rate of return of the expected net present worth, and make comparisons to the expected rate of return based on simulations. The concept of moment generating functions of random variables is employed to get the analytic forms of the expectations. This study also considers many possible distributions for the random separating time between returns and supply a sufficient number of numerical examples. The findings show that this financial model applies to apartment buildings, condominiums, shopping malls, and the management of inventory stocks of expensive items.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business & ManagementSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207