MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766645598 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v8n4p213

A Proposed Investment on a University Campus

2017· article· en· W2766645598 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed H. S. Al Ashry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentSpace (punctuation)Investment (military)MarketingRevenueBusinessAdvertisingFinanceComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

College days are probably the most memorable years of a man or woman’s life. The students’ unions’ associations and entertainment building usually houses rooms for meetings and seminars, a book store, a small grocery store, a novelty store, a number of brand name fast and regular food restaurants, an arcade for games machines, bowling, ping pong, billiards, and a large space with appropriate seating for students and guests, and large screen TV’s and a movies theater. This paper proposes a scheme to build a risk managed students association building dedicated to the satisfaction of campus’ students’ and visitors’ needs. The return on its operations is assumed to be very rewarding to entrepreneurs and small businesses alike. This paper presents a case in which a union building is budgeted, three legal businesses leasing spaces within this building. The building’s budgeted capital is financed. The space leased by the three businesses represents a small percentage of the overall structure, however, its revenue and specifically input into the building’s investment is relatively much larger, emphasizing that the union’s building’s investment is a successful venture. An element of humorous sarcasm is introduced in describing one of the union building’s leasing businesses; a provision of an entertaining flavor to escort readers’ attention.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207