MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973734256 · doi:10.1017/s0266466601172099

A NOTE ON BAYESIAN INFERENCE IN ASSET PRICING

2001· article· en· W1973734256 on OpenAlex
John Knight, Stephen Satchell

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Theory · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital asset pricing modelBayesian probabilityEconometricsPosterior probabilityBayesian inferenceInferenceMathematicsAsset (computer security)Consumption-based capital asset pricing modelStatistical inferenceDistribution (mathematics)Mathematical economicsEconomicsComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the authors extend results by Harvey and Zhou (1990, Journal of Financial Econometrics 26, 221–254) and Kandel, McCulloch, and Stambaugh (1995, Review of Financial Studies 8(1), 1–53) to derive the posterior distribution of a key parameter in a Bayesian analysis of asset pricing models. It is shown that this distribution depends upon the same terms that constitute the standard asset pricing test of Jobson and Korkie (1985, Canadian Journal of Administrative Science 12, 114–138). Contrary to the view held by other authors, we find straightforward expressions for the posterior distribution that can be calculated without resorting to Monte Carlo methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.210 · 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