MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050972154 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n5p8

Could Investors’ Expectations Explain Temporal Variations in Hurst’s Exponent, Loci of Multifractal Spectra, and Statistical Prediction Errors? The Case of the S&P 500 Index

2012· article· en· W2050972154 on OpenAlexaffvenue
C-René Dominique, Luis Eduardo Rivera‐Solis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultifractal systemHurst exponentStatistical physicsAttractorMathematicsEconometricsIndex (typography)Invariant (physics)Formalism (music)StatisticsFractalEconomicsPhysicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the periods 1998-2002 and 2009-2011, the S&P-500 Index went from persistence to anti-persistence mode, as measured by the Hurst index H. To uncover the reasons that characterize such a change, this paper uses a simple method that consists in treating quasi self-similar segments of the Index as initiators, and then finding appropriate generators with two intervals each to asymptotically model the strange attractor. The multifractal formalism shows that the change in persistence implies a corresponding change in the multifractal spectrum, and an enlargement of the invariant equilibrium set, making a market crash more likely, most probably due to a collapse of investors’ expectations. This also means that all statistical predictions made in one mode would have been off by an amount proportional to change in any element of the generalized set of dimensions in the other.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207