MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005292135 · doi:10.1108/15265940610712669

Fuzzy random‐coefficient volatility models with financial applications

2006· article· en· W2005292135 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

VenueThe Journal of Risk Finance · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKurtosisVolatility (finance)Fuzzy logicEconometricsFuzzy numberMathematicsStatisticsFuzzy setComputer scienceEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this research is to introduce a class of FRC (fuzzy random coefficient) volatility models and to study their moment properties. Fuzzy option values and the superiority of fuzzy forecasts over minimum mean‐square forecasts are also discussed in some detail. Design/methodology/approach Fuzzy components are assumed to be triangular fuzzy numbers. Buckley's data‐driven method is used to determine the spread of the triangular fuzzy numbers by using standard errors of the estimated parameters. Findings The fuzzy kurtosis of various volatility models is obtained in terms of fuzzy coefficients. Fuzzy option values and fuzzy forecasts are illustrated with examples. Fuzzy forecast intervals are narrower than the corresponding MMSE forecast intervals. Originality/value This paper will be of value to econometricians and to anyone with an interest in financial volatility models.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.287 · 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