MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045858483 · doi:10.1177/002795010117800103

Risk and Equity Market Weakness: Their Implications for the World Economy

2001· article· en· W2045858483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ray Barrell

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock marketEquity (law)EconomicsFinancial marketMonetary economicsStock (firearms)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The terrorist attack on New York on 11 September 2001 caused considerable disruption to the US economy, and especially to the US financial markets. The initial reaction of the financial markets was to increase the discount factor on future profits and reduce future profit projections, and hence stock market valuations fell markedly, as can be seen from charts 1 and 2. This fall has been largely reversed since the attack, but markets have in general continued their decline from their peaks a year or so ago. Falls have been particularly precipitate since July 2001, with the German and French stock market indices falling by 20 per cent over the last three months, whilst the Canadian markets have fallen even more. Stock market falls of the scale we have seen since July are almost bound to impact on the level of economic activity in the major economies. They are likely to reduce the rate of growth of the world economy over the medium term as well as change the structure of saving and investment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Institute Economic ReviewSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207