MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312141782 · doi:10.54097/hbem.v4i.3446

Research on the Investment Value of Three Companies on Industrial Sectors in the U.S. Capital Market

2022· article· en· W4312141782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qinyuan Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueHighlights in Business Economics and Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProfitability indexCorporationStock exchangeInvestment (military)BondFinanceManufacturingIndustrial organizationCommerceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stocks and bonds issued by industrial companies listed and traded on the stock exchange belong to industrial stocks. For example: electric power, steel, automobile, food, beverage, wine, textile, pharmaceutical, and other enterprises engaged in product manufacturing stocks, bonds and other securities. In the United States, industrial stocks make up a large proportion of the economy. In the process, investors can make a lot of profits. Despite more than a century of growth in such industries, there is still a lot of potential. Industrial stocks are among the areas with the longest shelf life in the United States and the world. This paper analyses the selected three companies in industrial sector the three aspects of risk, profitability and market ratio to predict basic trend in this area. Three companies are Canadian National Railway Company (CNI), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), FedEx Corporation (FDX). The results show Canadian National Railway Company is less risky and FedEx Corporation is least profitable. The findings in this paper may benefit the different investors in financial markets on investment decisions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHighlights in Business Economics and ManagementSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207