MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136286367 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2021.3.005

Can investors benefit from corporate social responsibility and portfolio model during the Covid19 pandemic?

2021· article· en· W3136286367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ternence T. J. Tan, Baliira Kalyebara

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)PortfolioCorporate social responsibilityBusinessFinancial marketIndex (typography)PandemicEconomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Financial economicsFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since late 2019 and throughout 2020, the global economy has been experiencing difficult times due to the outbreak of the lethal Coronavirus (COVID-19). This study looks at the financial impact of this epidemic on the global economy using Malaysian market index i.e., FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI before and during COVID-19. Measuring the financial impact of this epidemic on the Malaysia economy may help policy makers to develop measures to avert similar financial catastrophic impacts on the global economy. The study uses Sharpe optimal and naïve diversification model to solve a scenario that factors in the level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) exhibited before and during the epidemic to measure the financial impact on the stock portfolio. The results show that the emergence of COVID-19exacerbated the already weak Malaysian economy. Our findings may help the policy makers in Malaysia to develop and maintain techniques and policies that may mitigate the negative financial impact and handle similar epidemics in the future. Future studies could cover the financial impact of CSR using variable scoring and apply the portfolio model with practical and prevailing constraints.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207