MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Analysis Based on Adequate Risk-Adjusted Measures

2018· article· en· W2952243570 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Melnikov, Daria Vyachkileva

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Business and Economics Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial riskMeasure (data warehouse)EconometricsInvestment (military)Rank (graph theory)Risk measureActuarial scienceOrder (exchange)Investment performanceComputer scienceRisk–return spectrumRisk analysis (engineering)Return on investmentBusinessFinanceEconomicsData miningMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many potential investment options for investors and they should be able to compare them on a risk-adjusted basis. If investors rely only on pure return they can be exposed to a high risk. Therefore, many investors rely on adequate performance measures to evaluate potential investment opportunities. In this paper, we describe widely used risk-adjusted performance measures and add correlation through the M3 measure. We apply described measures to real financial data in order to rank managers and compare rankings between measures. We also look at the following year measures to compare the results with predictions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Business and Economics StudiesSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207