MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124130395 · doi:10.1111/eufm.12070

Persistent Doubt: An Examination of Hedge Fund Performance

2015· article· en· W3124130395 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Financial Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharpe ratioHedge fundRanking (information retrieval)Contrast (vision)Information ratioEconomicsSample (material)Actuarial scienceEconometricsPersistence (discontinuity)Monetary economicsBusinessFinancial economicsComputer sciencePortfolioFinanceChemistryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine whether performance persistence is suspicious. Top quintile portfolios formed on the Sharpe ratio, alpha, and information ratio persistently outperform similarly constructed mediocre third quintile portfolios throughout our sample period, but performance is more modest and less persistent when portfolios are formed on the excess manipulation-proof performance measure (EMPPM). By selecting funds formed on ranking by Sharpe and information ratios, investors also select funds that have persistently doubtful performance according to the doubt ratio. In contrast, portfolios formed on alphas and especially the EMPPM have much less excess and persistent doubt.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.131 · 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