MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948798023 · doi:10.5255/ukda-sn-7155-11

MQ5: Investment by Insurance Companies, Pension Funds and Trusts, 1997-2023: Secure Access

2023· dataset· en· W6948798023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUK Data Archive · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance sheetPensionInvestment (military)Quarter (Canadian coin)Unit (ring theory)Life insuranceUnit trust

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MQ5 survey includes quarterly net investment data arising from financial transactions (investments) made by insurance companies, self-administered pension funds, investment trusts, unit trusts and property unit trusts. Annual balance sheet data for short-term assets and liabilities are also reported. Income and expenditure data for insurance companies and self-administered pension funds are reported quarterly. Linking to other business studies These data contain Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) reference numbers. These are anonymous but unique reference numbers assigned to business organisations. Their inclusion allows researchers to combine different business survey sources together. Researchers may consider applying for other business data to assist their research (in particular, users interested in geographical variables for MQ5 may also consider applying for the Business Structure Database (SN 6697) and obtain them via linking). Latest edition information For the eleventh edition (August 2023), quarterly data files for 2022 have been updated and data files for quarter 1, 2023 have been added to the study for sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 118, 120 and 123.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.072

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUK Data ArchiveSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207