MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172710537 · doi:10.1080/17517575.2021.1939425

Informative index for investment based on Kelly criterion

2021· article· en· W3172710537 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

VenueEnterprise Information Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsPortfolioInvestment valueRobustness (evolution)Stock market indexProject portfolio managementMathematicsStock (firearms)Index (typography)Asset managementAsset allocationCorrelation coefficientStatisticsEconomicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsFinanceEngineeringStock marketManagementProject management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it comes to asset allocation and portfolio management, Kelly criterion is a mathematical formula used to optimise expected log-returns over the long term. Nonetheless, not all stocks are well suited for analysis using Kelly criterion, due to their transient nature and noisy data. This paper presents an innovative index by which to assess the suitability of stocks for analysis using the Kelly criterion. When applied to real-world stock data, the correlation coefficient between the proposed KSI and log-returns based on the Kelly criterion was −57.045% with a p-value of 1.215×10−1. In a robustness test based on the Mid-Cap 100 dataset, the correlation coefficient was −44.064% with a p-value of 2.438×10−5. The results demonstrate the efficacy of the KSI for portfolio management.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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