MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386417845

FINANCIAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF OVERSEAS MINING INVESTMENT BASED ON GRA AND TOPSIS

2015· article· en· W2386417845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zheng Ming-gu

Bibliographic record

VenueResources and Industries · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvaluation and Optimization Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISBusinessFinancial riskDelphi methodFinanceInvestment (military)Identification (biology)DelphiIndex (typography)EconomicsPolitical scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper,based on identification of financial risks,sets up assessment index system of financial risks which is given weight by using Delphi,and constructs assessment model based on TOPSIS and GRA,which is employed to assess the financial risks of the major target countries for Chinese investors. Risks are small in Canada,Mexico,Russia and Australia,but relatively high in South Africa,Kazakhstan,Chile and Brazil,higher in India and Argentina. Investors must consider the financial risks while investing.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources and IndustriesSame topicEvaluation and Optimization ModelsFrench-language works237,207