Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we evaluate and rank the performance of 65 Canadian Equity Pooled Funds. We adopt traditional performance measures to evaluate pooled fund managers’ performances from January 1999 to December 2008. We employ the geometric mean as a reward measure, standard deviation and beta coefficient as risk measures, and Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) risk-adjusted measures that include Jensen’s (1968) alpha, the Treynor (1965) ratio, the Sharpe (1966) ratio, and Modigliani and Modigliani’s (1997) M-Squared. Treynor-Mazuy (1966) and Henriksson-Merton (1981) are used to measure market-timing. According to our results, thirty-five percent of 65 Canadian Equity Pooled Funds managers have abnormal returns in terms of Jensen’s (1968) alpha. Only eight pooled fund managers have market-timing ability. None of 65 pooled fund managers has both selectivity and market-timing ability at the same time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.591 | 0.236 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".