Written for MFIN 6692.0 under the direction of
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to sincerely express my appreciation to my supervisor Dr. J. Colin Dodds for his guidance, help and encouragement to complete this thesis. I also would like to thank all professors in the MFin program for giving me the opportunity to study finance and cultivate the ability to solve problems. In addition, I would like to give my special thanks to my friends who gave me a lot of advice and help when I did the research. Most importantly, I would like to extend my love and thanks to my parents. ii The correlation between risk and return of Canadian mutual funds based on VAR By Nuozhou Zhang This paper uses VAR to measure the risk of Canadian mutual funds and to determine the correlation between the risk. And I built two equations to do the analysis. I use Equation 3.2 to expose the correlation between the return and the potential loss of mutual funds which can be illustrated on the coefficient 1. This equation will also expose whether the previous risk still has influence on the mutual fund returns, what the correlations are, and how long this influence will last. This information will illustrated on the coefficient 2, 3
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".