MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008957209 · doi:10.1080/0015198x.2019.1703984

“In Defense of Portfolio Optimization: What If We Can Forecast?”: Author Response

2020· article· en· W3008957209 on OpenAlexaff
David E. Allen, Colin Lizieri, Stephen Satchell

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Analysts Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioEconomicsPortfolio optimizationEconometricsMathematical economicsActuarial scienceFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Richard O. Michaud, David N. Esch, and Robert O. Michaud for their interest in our paper. In their letter, they suggest that our results are inconsistent with the canonical literature beca...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0330.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Analysts JournalSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207