MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053722141 · doi:10.2753/ree1540-496x4603s101

Which Trades Move Asset Prices? An Analysis of Futures Trading Data

2010· article· en· W2053722141 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

VenueEmerging Markets Finance and Trade · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractAsset (computer security)Institutional investorFinancial economicsHomogeneousBusinessMaturity (psychological)Investment (military)EconomicsEconometricsMonetary economicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the information content of trade size and investor performance in a unified framework, using the price contribution (PC) measure proposed by Barclay and Warner (1993). Several interesting results obtained through the analysis of a unique dataset of KOSPI200 futures are presented herein, as follows: (1) evidence is presented against the "stealth trading hypothesis," and it is claimed that medium-size trades are not more informative than trades of other sizes; (2) foreign institutions have an advantage over domestic investors in terms of information, and their investment performance is the best among all investor types; (3) domestic individuals cannot be considered homogeneous investors; and (4) although the PC of the trades by domestic institutions is relatively small on average, the domestic institutional investors outperform other investors at around the futures' maturity dates.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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