MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic discount rate through Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process for mining project valuation

2018· article· en· W2907677476 on OpenAlexaff
Aldin Ardian, Mustafa Kumral

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscounted cash flowValuation (finance)DiscountingCash flowInterest rateStochastic discount factorOrnstein–Uhlenbeck processEconometricsActuarial scienceComputer scienceEconomicsPresent valueProcess (computing)Stochastic processMathematicsCapital asset pricing modelFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discounted cash flow (DCF) is a conventional and widely used method for the mine valuation. The reason behind its wide use does not require complex mathematical computations. However, the technique is static; it does not allow the practitioner to react to the market changes. In DCF analysis, one of the important input is the discount rate, which, to some extent, represents the financial risk that the mining company may face in the future. The discount rate is sensitive to market and political uncertainties. Therefore, in fact, it is a dynamic parameter varying over the years. The application of DCF method is quite simple. As the life of mine prolongs, since the effect of discounting grows, DCF may not reflect the actual value of the project. This research proposes a way to find the discount rate for each year. The discount rate is calculated by a weighted average cost of capital formula by incorporating into the interest rate. The interest rate is treated by a stochastic process called Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process. This approach generates multiple realizations for the discount rate. Therefore, the proposed approach can quantify risks associated with the discount rate. Thus, the management of a mining project can make meaningful decisions. In doing so, a case study is conducted on a mining project to demonstrate the proposed approach.

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)0.000
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 score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207