MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406162550 · doi:10.35692/07183992.17.2.5

Eficiencia y diversificación de carteras compactas en el contexto de la reforma al sistema de pensiones en Chile

2024· article· es· W4406162550 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Renato Balbontín Sanhueza, Rodrigo Blanch Carrrizo

Bibliographic record

VenueMultidisciplinary Business Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of AdelaideBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoQuillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State UniversityNational Ethnic Affairs Commission of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artículo tiene como objetivo comparar los nive-les de eficiencia en la gestión de carteras compactas de alta, media y baja capitalización bursátil. Además, cuantificar qué tan bien diversificada se encuentra cada una de las carteras analizadas al descompo-ner su riesgo total en sus componentes sistemático e idiosincrático. El término “cartera compacta”, se define como un fondo accionario de renta variable constituido por un número reducido de valores diversificado en diferentes industrias con un bajo nivel de correla-ción entre ellos. Por otra parte, para asegurar una adecuada distribución estadística de sus retor-nos, los activos seleccionados se posicionan en un acotado rango de volatilidad. En el contexto de la reforma al sistema de pensiones en Chile, que se debate en el Congreso, se analiza la función que eventualmente cumplirán los fondos generacionales, y la factibilidad de invertir parte de los fondos previsionales en el extranjero en carte-ras compactas. En la actualidad, el principal vehículo para la inversión en renta variable extranjera son los fondos mutuos globales. En este artículo se anali-zan las ventajas de invertir en este tipo de carteras, principalmente en dos aspectos: primero, tener un control directo sobre el proceso de selección de activos; y segundo, reducir el pago de comisiones a solo los momentos de la compra y venta de acciones, en lugar de pagar una comisión anual a un fondo por la administración de una cartera accionaria.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultidisciplinary Business ReviewSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207