MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1891055026 · doi:10.1198/073500102288618504

Rolling-Sample Volatility Estimators

2002· article· en· W1891055026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economic Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorQuadratic variationVolatility (finance)Stochastic volatilityRealized varianceEconometricsWeightingMonte Carlo methodQuadratic equationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose extensions of the continuous record asymptotic analysis for rolling sample variance estimators developed for estimating the quadratic variation of asset returns, referred to as integrated or realized volatility. We treat integrated volatility as a continuous time stochastic process sampled at high frequencies and suggest rolling sample estimators which share many features with spot volatility estimators. We discuss asymptotically efficient window lengths and weighting schemes for estimators of the quadratic variation and establish links between various spot and integrated volatility estimators. Theoretical results are complemented with extensive Monte Carlo simulations and an empirical investigation.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.177 · 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