MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983258288

Making Real Options Valuation a Real Option

2023· article· en· W6983258288 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBond University Research Portal (Bond University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Discounted cash flowBusiness valuationCash flowComplement (music)Valuation of options
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it comes to valuing projects in highly uncertain business environments, real options valuation (ROV) isn’t popular as a management tool despite having long been touted as a best practice in academic circles. For example, in a 2004 Harvard Business Review article entitled “Making Real Options Really Work,” Alexander van Putten and Ian MacMillan explored the pros and cons associated with deploying real options as a valuation model. “If this fundamental option discipline is not baked into every option project, you are not investing, you are gambling,” they concluded after noting that real options are an essential complement to discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis because they allow managers to “capture the considerable value of being able to ruthlessly abandon floundering projects before making major investments.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBond University Research Portal (Bond University)Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207