MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296066611 · doi:10.4018/ijsds.309122

Holistic Feasibility Study for Different Investment Alternatives

2022· article· en· W4296066611 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Assad, Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownInvestment (military)Center (category theory)BusinessReturn on investmentCommercial areaComputer scienceEnvironmental economicsTransport engineeringMarketingOperations managementOperations researchEconomicsCivil engineeringEngineeringGeographyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feasibility study can be characterized as an assessment of potential effect of a proposed project. It is directed to help towards figuring out whether to establish a particular project. A feasibility study's main goal is to assess the economic viability of the proposed business. In this paper, the authors present a study that is done for an investor who wants to choose the most profitable alternative among four mutually exclusive alternatives. The alternatives include buying land and selling it after nine years, constructing an office building, constructing a shopping center, or constructing a multistory parking building. The office, shopping center, and parking buildings have a built-up area of 50,000 sf. The designated land area is located in Montreal downtown area, Canada. After performing the economic analysis, the shopping center turns out to be the most feasible. Finally, some supplementary analysis is applied to specify the most sensitive attribute. It is found that changing the minimum acceptance rate of return would have the most impact on the calculated results.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.574
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.051 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Strategic Decision SciencesSame topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207