The Split-Screen Approach for Project Appraisal (Part II: Spreadsheet Modeling)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper employs the newly conceived accounting-and-finance engineering system (AFES) described in a previous paper (Magni 2023, “The Split-Screen Approach for Project Appraisal (Part I: The Theory)”), addressed to the analysis of capital asset investments. In this second part, we show how to implement this theoretical framework onto a spreadsheet software. We guide the analyst step by step, cell by cell, to the creation of the Split-Screen Matrices describing the project film. Because the AFES is based on two arithmetic relations (law of motion and law of conservation), we can use a minimal approach to modeling, with a frugal use of the most common spreadsheet functions (essentially INDEX and MATCH) and no use of the traditional financial functions, yet fulfilling the requisite of clearness, transparency, consistency, and ease of use. Starting from the informal description of the project, we build the model by breaking it down to 7 modules. The spreadsheet model is available online (see link provided in the paper).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it