Portfolio optimization in the light of factor investment: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we attempted to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing and pertinent literature on the topic of factor investment. We performed Scientometric analysis of studies published in reputable finance journals, i.e., The Journal of Portfolio Management, The Financial Analysts Journal, The Journal of Asset Management and others, during the years 2014 to 2023. To obtain the research data for our study, we gathered and examined a collection of 76 bibliographic records sourced from the Web of Science database. This database provided a comprehensive and reliable source of scholarly publications in the field of finance. To analyze the data, we employed Scientometric networks as part of our analytical approach. Scientometric networks allowed us to explore the relationships and connections between different publications, authors, and keywords within the domain of factor investment. To visualize and present the research findings, we utilized the Bibliometrix package for R, a powerful tool specifically designed for bibliometric analysis. This package enabled us to generate insightful visualizations that showcased the key patterns, trends, and interconnections within the literature on factor investment. By employing Scientometric analysis and leveraging the capabilities of the Bibliometrix package, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing scholarly research in this field and contribute to the understanding of factor investment.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.138 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".