Behavioral Finance: The Explanation of Investors’ Personality and Perceptual Biases Effects on Financial Decisions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the important factors on investors financial decisions are perceptual errors which affect their decisions while buying and selling stock. The good of this study is to recognize the popular perceptual errors among investors and its connection with their personality. Therefore, 200 of the investors in Tehran's stock market were taken randomly as samples and the needed data was gathered through questions, using the parametric analysis and correlation we have tried to check the accuracy of the hypotheses. The finding demonstrates that the offered perceptual errors have got a significant correlation with the investors’ personality. The conclusions exhibit that there is direct correlation between extroversion and openness whit hindsight bias and over confidence bias, between neuroticism and randomness bias, between escalation of commitment and availability biases. Also, there is a reverse correlation between conscientiousness and randomness bias, between openness and availability bias.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it