MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162466932 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2021.4.001

The issue in Indonesian palm oil stock decision making: Sustainable and risk criteria

2021· article· en· W3162466932 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arif Imam Suroso, Hansen Tandra, Yusman Syaukat, Mukhamad Najib

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Palm Production and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCertificationStock (firearms)Profitability indexStock exchangeSustainable developmentEnvironmental economicsPalm oilFinanceEconomicsAgricultural scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The palm oil industry has a strategic role in economic development in Indonesia, especially in alleviating poverty and creating other businesses that can support the industry. Operational activities in the palm oil industry are closely related to environmental issues (deforestation, land-use change, and air pollution) and social conflict. The certification program is an effort for the palm oil industry to implement sustainable development. The certified palm oil industry will increase industrial profitability in the long run to increase investor interest in the future. The decision to choose palm oil industry stocks that carry out sustainable practices and generate maximum returns is an exciting issue, but how investors can choose the right stocks and the minimum risk level. This study aims to apply the decision-making model to choose the optimal stock in the palm oil industry, which involves sustainable certification and risk criteria. The method used in this study was the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) based on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) data. Determinants of stock selection decisions from previous research are considered criteria for decision making. Through the PROMETHEE method, a list of the rankings of the oil palm industry shares can be generated. The sustainable certification and risk criteria can be used as a reference for relevant stakeholders such as investors. Further studies need to be developed by adding non-financial criteria in the firm and developing the criteria to differentiate each other.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicOil Palm Production and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207