MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174830915 · doi:10.1287/opre.2022.2303

Star-Shaped Risk Measures

2022· article· en· W3174830915 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

VenueOperations Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsActuaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceProperty (philosophy)Star (game theory)Coherent risk measureRisk measureValue (mathematics)Risk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Value at riskEconometricsMathematicsEconomicsMedicineMachine learningFinancial economicsEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the mantras of risk measurement is the avoidance of risk concentration. However, most formal approaches to the topic actually require more than this. In “Star-Shaped Risk Measures,” Castagnoli, Cattelan, Maccheroni, Tebaldi, and Wang study this property “in purity” for monetary risk measures. They show that it unites value at risk and convex risk measures, it is amenable to aggregation of opinions, and it leads to treatable optimization, thanks to a meaningful functional representation. They also show its ubiquitous presence in several fields of decision making under uncertainty.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.156 · 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