MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550363554 · doi:10.52324/001c.8651

Lots of Bull: Regional Impacts of the 1990s Stock Market Boom

2000· article· en· W1550363554 on OpenAlexaff
Barney Warf, Joseph C. Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Regional Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoomMetropolitan areaDeregulationStock marketStock (firearms)EconomicsWork (physics)Personal incomeBusinessEconomyGeographyMarket economyEconomic growthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stock markets in the United States experienced a surge of growth throughout the 1990s as an expanding national economy, deregulation, and demographic change produced the longest bull run in history. This paper explores the reasons for this boom. Next, it charts rising employment in securities and commodities firms, emphasizing the dominant role played by New York. Third, it analyzes the local economic impacts of the bull market using regionalized input-output models of the New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago metropolitan areas to estimate regional output, employment, and personal income effects. In the three combined regions over the years 1991-1999, the bull market generated more than $4.1 billion in output, two-thirds of which was in the securities industry; 136,000 work-years of employment, primarily in producer services; and $8.2 billion in personal income. Geographically, these effects were heavily concentrated in the New York region.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Regional StudiesSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207