MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747087244 · doi:10.5430/afr.v6n3p153

A Study of the Factors Affecting the Choice of Investment Portfolio by Individual Investors in Singapore

2017· article· en· W2747087244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Seetharaman, Indu Niranjan, Nitin Patwa, Amit Kejriwal

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioInvestment (military)Structural equation modelingDiversity (politics)Affect (linguistics)Investment performanceInvestment strategyEconomicsInvestment portfolioPortfolio investmentActuarial scienceBusinessFinancial economicsFinanceMicroeconomicsReturn on investmentComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Singapore being an island economy and a financial hub with residents from diverse backgrounds, huge ethnic diversity, coming from different part of the world. This study aims to gain insights and information into the factors that affect investment planners, financial advisers and individuals need to consider improving their choice of the portfolio and its performance. People’s investment decisions and hence their portfolio, which hitherto has not been tested. Furthermore, it intends to identify the factors that drive investors to choose one investment over another and determine how they make their investment portfolios. The survey was modelled using the smart-pls statistical package (PLS-SEM), which is partial least squares structural equation modelling.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207